Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee entitled Commercial use of Tasmanian bumblebees, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I will not speak for too long because I am sure that Senator Urquhart would also like to speak to this report. I am very pleased to comment on this report today. I inherited the chair of the Environment and Communications Reference Committee only recently, but Senator Urquhart has also been involved with this inquiry. A little bit of background: this inquiry has spanned two parliaments—the 44th and 45th parliaments. It did lapse with the double dissolution, but we rejigged it so that we could take evidence in this new parliament. We have the report here today. Also the amendment to the EPBC act that the committee was looking at has previously been bought to the parliament and the Senate. It was during the 44th Parliament when the government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. It included a part 3 to the live import list, which was the key proposed amendment. That that would have created an exemption to the offence provision so as to allow companies or individuals to possess live specimens that are part of an existing feral population in a state or territory listed under the new part 3. Specimens would be listed for specific states and could be listed with or without conditions for use.

The populations that we are talking about here are bumblebees. They might seem like a strange thing to be talking about in the Senate. But, in my home state of Tasmania, this is a very important issue. We rely on bees—honey bees and, in some cases, native bees to pollinate plants and crops. It is absolutely critical to an agricultural-based state, like mine of Tasmania, that we have effective pollination services available to farmers and agricultural producers. We have to make sure, of course, that we have a healthy ecosystem and healthy environment so that bees can thrive. What we have discovered for the invasive species of the bumblebee—sadly, we have another awful invasive species in Tasmania called the European wasp that does an incredible amount of damage to our environment and our crops; but that is a debate for another time—is that bumblebees have been noted to be good pollinators. The genetic diversity in Tasmania is very poor. It is believed that the population, which has a firm foothold now right across the state, came from only two queens.

The Tasmanian government in recent times, together with industry, has proposed a plan to test how good bumblebees really are as pollinators by having a closed greenhouse trial. It would probably be on tomatoes because we know that they are used internationally on tomato crops. Then we can actually look and see how good they are as pollinators and whether they can actually provide a broader service across the state. One of the reasons for this is not only to increase productivity and, I am guessing, to provide some competition for the honey bee providers but also that honey bees are, as we know, under significant pressure. If we get varroa mite in this country, it could potentially be devastating and catastrophic to our honey bee population.

The committee heard a lot of evidence. We did go down to Tassie. We heard from a number of stakeholders down there. I would say that there are opportunities in this, which we have firmly outlined in the report, and there are risks to this, as well. The committee has considered those and has very cautiously made three recommendations that, I think, are very sensible. They are fairly close to what the government brought in in the 44th Parliament. We believe—and, I suppose, the committee is made up of a number of Tasmanian senators—this, potentially, could be a positive for Tasmania if the environmental risks can be managed. I would say to anyone who is interested in the report, please read the detail. We want to see the EPBC amendment come back to parliament. We can send it off to the legislation committee when that happens. We can look and see if there have been any updates to the science and if there are any more concerns that we need to incorporate. Then, hopefully, we can actually get a very selective, limited trial in Tasmania on the use of bumblebees for pollination.

I recommend the report to the Senate. I am sure that Senator Urquhart has more to say.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak, also, on the Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry and report into the risks and opportunities associated with the use of Tasmanian bumblebee population for commercial pollination purposes. In particular, the inquiry sought to examine the economic benefits of using bumblebees for commercial pollination in Tasmania. Also, it sought to look at any environmental and biosecurity risk, and any legislative barriers—at least to trialling such an approach. Last year, I moved, as Senator Whish-Wilson has indicated, a reference to establish the inquiry. I thank the Senate for agreeing to re-adopt the reference at the commencement of this new parliament. I would like to also acknowledge those who made submissions to the inquiry, those who gave evidence at the hearings and the secretariat staff for their assistance throughout the hearings and in putting together this report.

The bumblebee is not native to Australia, as Senator Whish-Wilson indicated, and is only present in Tasmania and on neighbouring islands. The first bumblebee queen likely arrived from New Zealand and bumblebees were first sighted in Hobart around 1992. By 1993, it was accepted that bumblebees had become established in Tasmania. Over the next 14 years, bumblebees have spread across the state into all major vegetation habitats including urban and agricultural areas from sea level to altitudes of over one kilometre above sea level. There was no evidence to the inquiry that over the ensuing 25 years, bumblebees have damaged the Tasmanian environment.

Bumblebees are excellent pollinators, using a rapid vibrating motion to pollinate a flower in a single visit. They are also large enough in size and fast enough workers, visiting more flowers and carrying heavier loads than honey bees. As a result, there is potential to increase yield and fruit quality for our horticultural industry across a wide range of plants. At present, much of the horticultural industry uses wand pollination to mimic the bumblebee's buzz technique.

The commercial use of bumblebees presents an opportunity for decreased costs as well as increased yields in comparison to honey bees and wand pollination.

I must note that a number of submitters contributed evidence that the commercial use of bumblebees for pollination could present a risk to the Tasmanian environment and a biosecurity risk to mainland Australia. But possession of bumblebees is currently prohibited as the animal is not listed on the live import list established under the EPBC Act. The way that EPBC Act is written, it is even illegal to possess the established feral population in Tasmania. As the initial bees were not legally imported, they and their descendants cannot be possessed lawfully. In the last parliament, the coalition government, as Senator Whish-Wilson indicated, proposed amendments to the EPBC Act that could allow the possession of the existing Tasmanian bumblebee population within Tasmania. These amendments lapsed with the early election. The amendments would establish a new part 3 to the live import list to create an exception to the offence provisions so as to allow companies or individuals to possess live specimens that are part of an existing feral population in a state or territory. Specimens would be listed for specific states and could be listed with or without conditions for use. For a specimen to be added to part 3, it must be established through an environmental impact assessment that possession would not likely damage the environment. Amendments would be made by the minister and would be a disallowable instrument.

Finally, states and territories would then have the choice to opt in to the exemption with the offence to still apply in states that do not opt in. It is encouraging in this place when we can come together as the Senate environment committee actually did to find common ground across the parties and present recommendations that balance environmental concerns with the industrial opportunities.

The committee made three recommendations, and there was support from the Labor, the Liberal-Nationals and the Greens in those three recommendations. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth introduce the specific amendments to that EPBC Act that I have referred to regarding the live import list. It also recommended an initial sunset clause is included in the proposed amendments. The sunset clause would include a review mechanism after two years of operation to examine the worth of the new process and any unintended consequences. If any adverse environmental impacts are identified in the review, the parliament should amend the EPBC act to remove or remedy the new part 3.

Finally, there were a number of submissions that argued that there was insufficient evidence around the effectiveness of native bees for commercial pollination. As a result, the committee's third recommendation is that the Commonwealth government work with state governments to fund further research into the use of native bees as pollinators. I commend the report to the Senate and encourage the government to respond to this inquiry in a timely fashion.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the fifth report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and to make abundantly clear on the record that Labor dissented—a very unusual dissent—the Immigration and Border Protection fit-out—some $250-odd million worth of fitting out of four buildings, reducing their footprint from 12 down to four. It is a very, very unusual event that the Public Works Committee actually has a vote and divides on a proposal. The deputy chair, Mr Zappia, made some cogent remarks in the tabling of the report in the House of Representatives to the extent that the committee on the Labor side was not convinced about the merits of the argument put by Border Protection. They were not convinced about the reasons for moving. They were not convinced about the costs per square metre of the fit-outs. Also, they were not convinced by the justification which attempted to extrapolate net present value out some 30 years. The proposal from Border Protection was that in 30 years time will save in excess of $200 million. In this chamber, we do not have the luxury of knowing what is going to happen in 30 years time. I suggest that Border Protection, even with the assistance of the finance minister's department, would be unlikely to be correct in extrapolating a view over 30 years time.

What is precisely quantifiable is the mathematics of that work, but the assertions they make are unlikely to be gained in factual outcomes. We do not know what size the department will be in 30 years time. We do not know what its direction will be. We do not know the impact of technology on that department. We do not know the impact on any number of areas. But there is a mathematical assertion that on net present value there will be some savings in 30 years time—that is seven years after the end of the lease. At the end of the lease period of 23 years, they have extrapolated out for another seven years to justify their decision, which is to spend about $1.7 billion leasing premises and fitting them out with landlord incentives.

Labor Party had a couple of concerns. One is that it appeared to be excessive in terms of cost per square metreage. They did not achieve the parameters of $1,200 and $1,800 per square metre in any of the ventures that they are proposing. The cost was excessive. The second point is that it was financed by leasing incentives. The simple equation there is, if you are getting an incentive, you really do need to examine whether that has been recovered in higher lease prices. A simple analogy is: a building that was vacant for eight years is now going to be leased out for the next 15-plus years at the five-star rating value. The government is going to pay the top leasing payments for all of the time that it is leased out, despite the fact that it was built and not occupied for eight years. There is no discount in the lease incentives. The discount is advanced as a proportion of the fit-out cost, which ends up with the landlord. If you fit-out a building and you move out of it, you cannot take the fit-out with you: it ends up as value to the landlord. We had some serious concerns. I just wanted to make sure that we had on the public record the Public Works Committee divided and had a vote. The government members had the majority and put the expenditure motion through the parliament against the Labor Party members of the committee.

I just want to say this before I pass to Senator Ludlam: the last time we had a division of this type was in respect to a fit-out of some premises in Doha. Our diplomatic footprint is to be expanded. We are going to go into Doha and spend seven million bucks fitting out a floor of a five-star building at precisely the same time as all of the other countries in the region take their diplomatic posts out of Qatar. As Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and a number of other countries around there declare Doha a hotbed of terrorism, we are going in there to spend seven million bucks fitting out the expansion of our diplomatic footprint—quite ironic. Sometimes the Public Works Committee's deliberations are quite prescient. I will just say this: what Border Protection are doing is not value for money and it is not demonstrably in the public interest. It may well be an empire-building objective of the minister and Secretary Pezzullo, but it is certainly not in the public interest. They did not demonstrate value for money and, most importantly, they did not demonstrate to the committee the abundance of clarity or disclosure which we need to make proper informed decisions. Suffice it to say that Labor dissented, and I do not want to be as correct on this dissent as we probably are on the Doha dissent.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted. Debate adjourned.