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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This document is a performance audit by the Auditor-General into funding models for threatened species management. When you open up an Auditor-General's report, you do not usually expect to immediately be reminded of Australia's globally distinct ecosystems, our immensely diverse flora and fauna and the richness of biodiversity that means Australia is recognised as one of the world's mega-diverse countries. Something that we often forget in Australia, whilst we recognise our magnificent natural environment and our wildlife, is just how incredibly diverse and unique it is, and how crucial that fact is to the long-term health not just of our environment but of all of the social and economic services that depend on a healthy, diverse environment. Approximately 85 per cent of our flowering plants, 84 per cent of our mammals, 45 per cent of our birds and 89 per cent of our reptiles occur only in Australia. Unfortunately, in the last couple of hundred years, more than 130 of Australia's known species have become extinct, three of those just since 2009.

What this audit report does is look at the funding models for the management of threatened species, because at the core of maintaining biodiversity is ensuring the diversity and the survival of all of those species—all of those different types of life. We are doing more and more poorly. Whilst this Auditor-General's report goes to the funding models and the way that they are being managed, at its core is a recognition that we are failing to deliver our obligations under the federal environment law. This government is failing to deliver. There is no doubt that our federal environment laws need a significant overhaul. There are gaps that need to be plugged. But what this government is doing is failing its obligations under the existing law by failing to properly fund what is required.

This report goes to the fact that this government has basically tried to contract out its obligations to the private sector. We've just had a debate in this place about the failure of the neoliberal model, the failure of the economic model that both the established parties of the political establishment have taken on board as a matter of political faith for the last few decades—that somehow or other government is better done by contracting it out to the private sector. This report shows that you cannot do that in an effective way and expect governments to meet their legal and, clearly, ethical obligations to the Australian community to prevent further extinction and to properly manage and address endangered species. You cannot contract that out to the private sector. But that's what we've seen with this government adopting the approach of free-market fundamentalism gone wild.

This Auditor-General's report explicitly goes to the so-called Threatened species prospectus that this government put forward just over a year ago. The audit assesses the effectiveness of the design of that Threatened species prospectus. It's couched in the usual Auditor-General's language, but it clearly identifies that there is a lack of a fit-for-purpose performance framework. There's an inability to properly assess adequacy, even on its own merits—and, let me be clear: this proposal, this policy approach from the government, is grossly flawed. It is a piecemeal approach. It is contracting out the core, central role of the government, to ensure that the legal obligations are properly fulfilled in a systemic way. You don't just protect the threatened species that you can manage to find some funding for, the ones that are most easy to market. It's not a competitive arrangement amongst the threatened species of our country, to try to compete to see who can attract private sector funding to make sure that their habitat is not destroyed. There are no mechanisms in this approach to prevent the ongoing destruction of habitat, whether it's by logging, mining or all of those things that are destroying economic opportunities as well as destroying the biodiversity opportunities and the biodiversity heritage of this country.

I think this Auditor-General's report, couched, as it is, in its own dry economic language, is actually good reading for people who want to get a grip on the economic irresponsibility of trying to apply a market based approach, a neoliberal approach, to a fundamental aspect of environmental management and, let's be clear, the legal obligations of this federal government, under our federal environment law, to properly manage and address threatened species. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak only briefly, to add to Senator Bartlett's remarks about this Audit Office report on funding models for threatened species management. I urge anyone who is concerned about the way that this government is not addressing our threatened species to read this report, because it shows that, even within the very limited framework that the government is applying, it is failing to do that adequately. This report shows, first of all, the lack of consistency, the totally ad hoc nature of this attempt to get private funding into the management of threatened species, the lack of a framework that was established at the beginning of the process and the lack of consultation with the threatened species advisory committee. Even in the limited framework that's been set up, this approach with the prospectus has failed. It just goes to the heart of the lack of attention and the lack of importance that this government places on threatened species. If we were serious about protecting threatened species, we would not be acting in such a random, ad hoc, ineffective, inconsistent and fundamentally underfunded way to protect our precious animals and plants, which are special, which are unique to Australia.

What this report doesn't go to is the fact that even the species that are being focused on in this prospectus are only a small portion of the threatened species that need programs to be put in place to address them. It talks about the fact that the species included in the prospectus were chosen in a pretty random, ad hoc way and chosen without adequate consultation. But what it doesn't show is that there are a whole range of other species that this government and the Threatened Species Commissioner have deliberately chosen not to include.

This is important because, if you hear this government talk about its approach to threatened species, it talks about the Threatened Species Commissioner role as being of fundamental importance. It talked about the prospectus as being a fundamental measure, a tool, to address threatened species. Yet that is not succeeding there, and it is leaving a whole raft of other species completely underresourced in terms of the measures that need to be taken to address them.

In particular, the threatened species that weren't included in the prospectus are those under threat from habitat destruction due to resource exploitation. I'm particularly talking about logging operations and mining operations. With logging operations, we know that the species that weren't included in this prospectus include ones like the Leadbeater's possums, which are affected by logging in Victoria's Central Highlands. They include species like greater gliders, which have now become vulnerable because of loss of habitat due to logging operations. These weren't even mentioned in the prospectus.

Even under the limited scope that has been outlined, they are doing it badly. It speaks volumes, and it shows that the approach of this government is completely inadequate to protect our precious plants and animals; that we need to have a serious, whole-of-government approach to address the protection of our species, the plants and animals that are threatened; and that we need to have serious resources put into it. You can't just hope that you're going to get private sector funding to help address threatened species. In fact, the lofty aims of this prospectus to gain millions of dollars of funding have so far resulted in only two projects having private sector funding, one to the tune of $200,000; the other, only $10,000. It is not the way forward. It is not how we are going to address threatened species.

We can put the money into it, and we need to if we're going to protect these animals. We can cut the tax breaks for the big end of town. We can raise revenue of billions of dollars by making sure that we get rid of fossil fuel subsidies for the mining industry, for example. We can invest serious money into our threatened species, and that's what we need to do if we are going to have animals like the Leadbeater's possum actually pulled back from extinction, if we are going to have the plants and animals that we appreciate today continuing to be available in our natural environments, and particularly in our forests, for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.