Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, introduced by the Greens, a bill that we are incredibly proud of, standing up and fighting for the survival of one of our most iconic animals and part of our most beautiful nature here in Australia. Our iconic koala, much loved around the globe, could soon be extinct in the wild. Just last week we saw the Prime Minister of Japan cuddling a koala in a zoo here in Australia. Without urgent action, sadly, zoos will be the only home where koalas will be seen.

WWF has recently released the Living Planet Report 2022, which was a damning indictment when it comes to extinction. It found global wildlife populations fell by 69 per cent on average between 1970 and 2018. We are indeed facing an extinction crisis. And, shamefully, Australia continues to have the most mammal extinctions in the world. This is a record we should not be proud of.

The report details a disturbing story of continual decline of more than 1,100 wildlife populations in Australia due to the pressures of climate change, habitat destruction and introduced predators. When it comes to koala populations it found they've plummeted in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT.

We know all too well that the koala is much loved and needs to be saved. The report found that globally land use change is still the biggest threat to nature, destroying or fragmenting the natural habitats of many plant and animal species on land, in fresh water and in our oceans. I couldn't stand here without acknowledging just how devastating it is that we continue to have native forest logging in this country. This report clearly stated that if we cannot limit global warming to 1.5 degrees climate change will likely become the dominant cause of biodiversity loss in coming decades. The irony in this is that, in order to stop dangerous climate change, we need more biodiversity than ever before. We don't just need to stop destroying nature; we need to start restoring nature. The Greens have also got a bill for a climate trigger, which would require polluting projects to be assessed for their emissions and their impact on the climate. It would be another vital reform for our environment laws if we are to make them fit for the crises that we are facing.

At home here in Australia, we know from our own Australia state of the environment report published in July that the overall state of our environment in Australia is poor and deteriorating. It is the result of increasing pressures from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction. If urgent action is not taken to address these pressures and threats then the koala and many other precious wildlife species will be pushed to the brink of extinction. This bill goes a long way towards stopping habitat loss, whether that loss is due to a new coalmine, gas mine, big property development, cement mine, new road or some other type of project. So long as that proposal is on critical koala habitat, I put to you that it should not go ahead.

This is the type of action we need to reverse biodiversity loss and secure a nature-positive world. Earlier this year, the koala was officially listed as 'endangered'. This uplisting may sound like a positive thing, but it is a devastating mark. It means that, within a decade, koalas have gone from not being listed as 'threatened' at all to being 'vulnerable' and now 'endangered', facing extinction within the next three decades.

It's not really a coincidence that this trend has happened at the same time as we've had a decade-long government who did nothing to protect the environment and who, in fact, put their foot on the pedal to environmental destruction. The environment-wrecking Liberal and National parties were in power for that exact amount of time. Of course, we know their attitude towards the koala. All you need to do is listen to the debates coming out of the New South Wales parliament to know these members do not care about the significance of the extinction of the koala.

I hope that the Labor Party will be different. I hope that this government can turn the tide. I hope that together in this place we can see that, if we cannot save the koala, we have no hope of turning around the trend of environmental destruction. It was during the Liberal and National parties' reign that I first introduced this bill, but, with the pressures of the mining corporations, their donor lobbyists and their property developer mates, they were never going to stop the destruction of critical koala habitat. I hope Minister Plibersek will be better.

Minister Plibersek has announced an objective to stop extinction; well, here is an opportunity to do just that. We can't just talk about saving our koala and about saving our wildlife. There's no point just having a target for extinction unless you are going to stop ruining and wrecking the very homes of these vulnerable animals. The single most important thing for halting the extinction of the koala is to stop destroying koalas' homes. Stop destroying their habitat.

There are a number of proposals right now on the desk of the minister from companies—whether it's BHP or it's property developers—who are asking her to sign off on the destruction of critical koala habitat. The BHP proposal for the Peak Downs coalmine expansion beggars belief: BHP want to expand their coalmine right into critical koala habitat. This proposal sits on the desk of the minister today. If the minister agrees to and signs off on this proposal—if she gives it the green light—she is condemning koalas to extinction. So stand strong, stand up for the koala, stand up for your convictions and ensure that big companies like BHP cannot continue to make profits off the destruction of koala homes.

Then there's the Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion in the Upper Hunter region that would cause almost one billion tons of carbon emissions and which is also right smack bang in critical habitat. There are other projects like massive housing developments near Campbelltown, threatening Greater Sydney's only disease-free growing koala population. There are more and more threats on koala habitat. And where is the minister in this?

Of course, there are many projects on the minister's desk, where big companies are asking her to greenlight their projects at the cost of the survival of our native species. And it's not just about the koala, of course. We know the impacts of the MMG tailings dam in the World Heritage Tarkine and the impact that's going to have on the native species there, particularly the masked owl. There are so many projects where this minister can actively step in now and stop in order to save and reverse the extinction of our wildlife.

The reason this is so important is because we know our environment is in crisis. The state of our environment is at its worst point in time, ever. We have to turn the trend around. One project might not seem so much, but when you add all of these up what we see is a devastating tsunami of threatened species, endangered species and extinction. And once these animals are gone for good, they are gone. They are not coming back. It is an international shame that right here, right now, the Australian koala is on the endangered list, and yet there are still corporations wanting to destroy their homes. This legislation would stop that from happening. This legislation would put a moratorium on the destruction of critical koala habitat, to give the koala the opportunity to survive. This isn't about being antidevelopment; this is about making sure these projects are done in the right places not the wrong places. And when you are facing a world where the koala may be extinct within the next few decades you must make the right choices. Allowing a coal expansion, or a big development or a cement mine to happen smack bang in the middle of koala habitat is the wrong choice.

I hope that this government have a bit more guts than the previous one. I hope that this government fulfils their promise to the Australian people that they will care more about the environment than the last mob. But we need to see this action in full. It's not good enough just to talk about the koala or have your nice cuddly photo. You actually have to stop the destruction of their homes, and the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, have the power to save the koala today. A moratorium on protecting critical koala habitat would save not just the koala but many, many other species that live within that environmental pocket.

As we face the dual crisis of climate change and extinction and biodiversity loss we must be smarter about how we manage these issues. We need to make sure that the extinction crisis is considered as seriously as the climate crisis, because if it is not we will lose the koala and many of our other Australian native wildlife species for good. And it's not just about the impact that that has on us as a community, and the global and international shame: it is the biodiversity loss that we will all suffer from. If we want to deal with the climate crisis that confronts us and to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees—two degrees at the very least—we need to change the way we engage with our natural world. We know the destructive effects that climate change is already having. We can see them and feel them—floods, fires, more floods, extreme weather. The climate has changed. It's here. It's already threatening our homes, our livelihoods, our jobs. One of the major and urgent things that need to happen is the protection and restoration of nature, because biodiversity is an essential part of our toolkit for combatting the climate crisis. Why on earth would any minister, in 2022, allow the destruction of koala habitat, knowing that our koala faces extinction, that our biodiversity is needed more than ever and that nature is crying out for help?

I look forward to hearing the other contributions on this bill, because this is an important debate. It is about choice, about trade-offs and about prioritisation. I don't think for one second that BHP's expansion of a coalmine should be given a higher priority than saving the koala's critical habitat at this point in time. It is not the right place to do it. For far too long corporations and governments have done deals that have traded off our wildlife, that have offset their homes. And over and over again we've seen these offsets to be absolute shams and rorts, bordering on corruption. All you need to do is look at the Auditor-General's report tabled in the New South Wales parliament to see that the koala has been undersold too many times. It's time to save the koala.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this important matter before the Senate. As Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I've had the chance to see the important work that the Albanese Labor government is doing in delivering protection for Australia's unique landscape and environment. It has been a pleasure to work with the new Minister for the Environment and Water. Despite the objections at the other end of the chamber, she is doing an incredible job of managing the very difficult processes around environmental protections and approvals and of making sure that in our budget we deliver for the environment. It was, of course, a Labor government that created the largest network of marine parks in the world, and they were Labor governments in office that delivered conservation agendas that have protected some of our most treasured environmental assets—for example, the Daintree, in my home state.

We know all too well that our natural environment and unique flora and fauna are in crisis. It is true that under the last government the environment absolutely copped it, not just in a real way but in a reputational way as well. We know that, through the Senate, there were many attempts to deal with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and that in those negotiations there were attempts by the previous government to water it down. Finally, there is a Labor government and a Labor environment minister who are willing to work to protect the environment, protect native species and protect the Great Barrier Reef. I'm very proud of what we managed to deliver in the budget last night to protect the environment.

This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, deals with environmental protection. It deals with listings and the way that approvals are made under the EPBC Act. We know that the environmental laws that we have right now have an established legal framework to manage and protect all threatened species and ecological communities as matters of national environmental significance, and that includes the koala. In February this year, koalas were listed as endangered under the act for the combined populations across the east coast, where they are at most risk. Nobody wants to see this happen; nobody wants to see a listing of this kind, but it is really important to understand that a listing under the act, which has been referred to today in such a misleading way, does actually provide an opportunity for assessments to be made around risks for that species. As a result, koalas have comprehensive recovery plans in place, and that is the same, in fact, for every native species. I know the koala is incredibly important and popular and iconic, but we want to make sure every native species that is at risk is dealt with in the same way and is protected under the act.

Last night's budget showed that the Labor government is making significant investment in the protection and conservation of our environment and, of course, of koalas, with $76 million towards koala conservation, including a new commitment of $24.5 under the new Saving Native Species plan, which will fund habitat restoration, threat management and monitoring and health initiatives. The budget also included funding for a national koala recovery team, which has been convened to guide and track the implementation of the recovery plan, because we know the recovery plan on its own will not do the hard work of delivering protection, so we are funding a national recovery team. They held their first meeting on 7 October. They are already getting on with the job, and we are looking forward to seeing the important work that they do.

It is really important to understand that what this bill proposes is to change our environmental laws to afford preferential treatment for koalas over other species, and that is something that we need to consider. I know that the Leadbeater's possum and the loggerhead turtle are other favourites of people in this place and in the community, but we consider that all of those species should be dealt with in the same way under the act. That's why it is important to understand how this legislation would actually impact powers and responsibilities under the EPBC Act.

Labor's budget last night also delivered for the environment more broadly. I think it is important to understand, in the context of this debate—as, from time to time, we see bills from the Greens—that when you are a party of government you can deliver a budget that delivers for the environment. It's all well and good to come in here with private members' bills that seek to tinker around the edges of environmental laws and seek to do things that, practically, would be very difficult to deliver. But, when you are a party of government—when the Labor Party is in government—we deliver real investment for the environment and protection that is funded and that can be delivered on the ground. That is an incredibly important thing to understand in the context of this debate.

Under Labor, the environment is back on the agenda. I was so pleased to see so much investment in the budget last night under 'climate change'—a new phrase, for those opposite, in the budget—but also for the environment more broadly. Australians can see the difference. People are telling me it's the breath of fresh air our nation desperately needs. We saw that last night. The budget delivers $1.8 billion in funding for the environment. This is a down payment on our commitment to prioritise the environment after almost a decade of neglect under the former government.

The Australian government is delivering on its election promises as well. Unlike those opposite, we don't just have media releases and make announcements; we actually deliver on our promises. There are a range of targeted investments to reverse the decline from the previous government. In the budget this year the Australian government builds on its commitments, and this is a very important investment with regard to the debate we're having today around the EPBC Act.

We have included funding in this budget to respond to the Samuel review of the EPBC Act. We know it was released a few years ago. It was put on the shelf and ignored by those opposite. We will be responding to that review. We have funded a response to that review to make sure that it can be delivered.

We can't fix a decade of Liberal environmental damage overnight. We can't undo the recklessness of having no consistent energy policy over 10 years. We can't undo the years and years of internal chaos around whether climate change is even real. We can't undo overnight the lack of investment and certainty around climate change and renewable energy. But we can deliver a budget that is focused on getting things moving and hitting the ground running.

We have higher ambition when it comes to climate change, a clearer path to net zero and a pathway to no new extinctions. We are cracking down on gases that are bad for the ozone layer. We have new laws that better protect the environment and give businesses the ability to make quicker and clearer decisions—something that people have been crying out for. We have an environmental protection agency which will be the top cop on the beat to enforce those laws—something those opposite refused to do when they were in government. And we have made a commitment to protect 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of the oceans by 2030. We've announced a new nature repair market to reward farmers and other landholders for their work in restoring and protecting the environment. We are working with the agricultural sector, who are some of the people telling us that we need to take action on climate change and deliver lasting reform when it comes to environmental protections. We've committed to expanding blue carbon projects—more mangroves and seagrasses, making our oceans cleaner and getting carbon out of the atmosphere—reducing problematic plastic, developing environmentally friendly plastic and alternatives, and making recycling easier for families and businesses.

There is more work to be done, but it would be wrong for anyone to come into this place and use this bill as an opportunity to attack the current government or the current environment minister on her commitment and our government's commitment to the environment and to delivering real protection for the environment and real investment. Something we can do and something that Labor governments always do is stand up for the environment. There's more that we can do, but we are getting on with the job.

In addition to this investment it has been fantastic to see the work that we are doing on the ground with Landcare rangers. We are investing $90 million over six years to employ and upskill 1,000 Landcare rangers to help us conserve and restore the environment. We are also making sure that we are investing in actions for threatened species, places and recovery activities. There is $224 million in the budget for that action.

Of course I am incredibly proud of the investment that we are making to protect and restore the Great Barrier Reef. That includes $1.2 billion—and $204 million of that is new funding—to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We know that, under the last government, the reef—one of the biggest economic drivers in regional Queensland—was put at real and reputational risk. That is very clear. We know that. No amount of obfuscating from those opposite would—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They wouldn't be able to say that they stood up for the reef, protected those jobs and made sure that all the communities that rely on the reef were protected. That is what we are doing as a government. I'm incredibly proud that, of that $204 million, $15 million will be going to a centre of excellence in Gladstone to make sure that there is research and science going into our reef's protection, and that $96 million of that funding will be for on-the-ground projects working with farmers, traditional owners and Indigenous rangers to make sure that we are dealing with water quality projects, that we are measuring and monitoring water quality, and that we're giving people real-time information.

There is so much to be proud of in this budget when it comes to the environment, and that is how you protect species like the koala. You invest in the Samuel review, which we are doing; you deliver a response, which the minister has committed to do; you make sure that your approvals under the Environment Protection Act are sound and that they're based, not on rants in the Senate but on sound advice; you make sure that investment is going into threatened species; you make sure that we have funding to deliver recovery plans and don't just leave them on a shelf to gather dust; and you ensure that you are investing in the Great Barrier Reef and that you are protecting our environment in a way that actually delivers economic benefits all across the country. That is what you do if you are a Labor government that cares about the environment. That's exactly what this country needs, and that's exactly what this country got last night.

I am incredibly proud to be working very closely with the Minister for the Environment and Water. I know she takes her role incredibly seriously in assessing approvals of projects, and is aware of the responsibility that we have to project threatened species like the koala. What we won't do is come into the Senate and pretend that a bill which tinkers around the edges and looks at treating one species differently to others is the answer to delivering long-lasting environmental protection.

Labor governments protect the environment by making sure that there is long-lasting reform and long-lasting investment, and that we have people committed to these protections. That's what we did in the budget last night, that is what the minister for the environment is continuing to do and that's what we will continue to do as a party of government who is building on fixing the last 10 years of mess and reducing the neglect.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great pleasure to join others in making a contribution to an important debate. While I agree with much of what Senator Green said on behalf of the opposition, not all of it is something I can sign up to. I want to start my contribution on this, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, by acknowledging the passion that the proponent of this bill has in the causes that she prosecutes as the Greens environment spokesperson. I don't think anyone in this place can doubt Senator Hanson-Young's commitment to the cause and what she stands for. Matched with that, though, is the rhetoric that we heard in the contribution she made around development versus environment, and economy versus environment. I think that's something we do need to interrogate a little bit in the time available to me and in the debate on this bill and on what, exactly, it does.

It was pleasing to hear Senator Green look at the effect or impact of this bill and what it would materially do, what difference it would make and whether it would be the answer that we heard in the first speech of the 2022 consideration of this bill. No-one argues with the fact that we need to do everything we can to preserve and protect our precious and fragile environment. Not a single person in this place thinks it is worth burning, chucking away or destroying—no-one. Most people who are characterised as having that view, of course, are people who believe in balance—and that's a concept I'm going to come back to a little later on—be they farmers, foresters or people who are making a contribution to the Australian government's commitment to build a million new homes for Australians to live in and to ease the housing crisis. They're all characterised in the same way as developers who want to 'destroy the environment'.

But I think it is a falsehood to suggest that this bill is the only way to address the issues and pressures being faced by the koala and the environment it lives in. It's wrong to suggest that this is the only way—or, indeed, even a way—because I'm not convinced this bill would materially improve the outcomes for the koala in the way it has been suggested.

The debate that's being set up here frames the parameters of discussion to suggest that the only way to protect the koala is to stop all land clearing. We know, very well, that to enter into an arrangement of that nature, to put in place a moratorium on any form of land clearing, in habitat, that would be contemplated under elements of this bill, would have a dire impact on other parts of our society—that balance I talked about between the environment and the economy.

We have to have the best standards possible when it comes to the management of our environment, and to habitat management for endangered and threatened species, to ensure that we don't make situations worse. That is absolutely central to what we as a developed nation must put in place when it comes to our environmental legislation and the regulation around development, resources extraction and managing the forestry industry. We have to have all of those regimes in place as part of international obligations we sign up to—rightly so and proudly so, as Senator Green said on behalf of the Labor Party. But stopping all clearing of land is not the answer. That's a point that was made in 2021 in the last parliament by the then opposition as well, that this is a blunt instrument that's not effective.

It's important to point out when dealing with this one issue, land clearing, whatever the cause or reason behind it, be it clearing land for productive purposes, such as grazing cattle, cropping, dealing with our needs for sustenance and food or for the creation of land to build houses—we know, as part of last night's budget, that there was a commitment to construct an extra million homes to assist with the housing crisis that we know Australians are facing—that they are not the only reasons. I only have to reflect on the debate on this bill in the last parliament to consider another cause of habitat loss and destruction for the koala.

I refer to the contribution from Senator Faruqi in February of last year. Senator Faruqi made the point that the bushfires of 2019 and 2020 were a major contributor to habitat loss for koalas. The point is that this bill isn't going to stop bushfires.

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

You don't log what doesn't get burnt.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice makes an interjection there: 'If you don't log them, they don't get burnt.' Again, this is—

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

No, I said, 'You don't log what doesn't get burnt.'

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'You don't log what doesn't get burnt,' okay. Senator Faruqi in her contribution said that the 2019-20 bushfires destroyed more than 12 million hectares of forests and killed more than a billion animals and devastated communities. Let's take that at face value. That is a massive impact on the environment and a massive impact on the habitat of koalas. But the bill doesn't address any of that.

To suggest that this bill would be the panacea for the koala—we all want to see the best outcome for this great icon; we want to make sure that we put in place the best arrangements to protect its habitat and future, but this bill doesn't deal with bushfires, for example. We need to consider this too. Rarely are we given the opportunity to look at things like fuel-reduction burns and other regimes of good forest management that would contribute to preserving the habitat of koalas.

Concurrent with the points that have been made about what this bill would do, it does cut off the ability to contribute a holistic approach to species management and species preservation. Senator Faruqi bells the cat on that by pointing to, over a year ago, the fact that over 12 million hectares were burnt, impacting on koalas, but there isn't one bit of contemplation of that in this bill introduced by her colleague.

Looking again at the debate that occurred over a year ago now—nearly two years, in fact—I want to reflect on the contributions that were made. The Labor position hasn't really changed, which I think is a good thing. Senator McAllister, who made a contribution on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, made the point that:

Unfortunately, here in the Australian Senate, a private senator's bill is unlikely to be the solution. This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, has no chance of becoming law.

She said that, even if it were to pass the Senate, it wouldn't make it through the House. She made the point that this bill, in its creation, was never taken to the communities that it would impact and there was no consultation. She said:

… we wouldn't have any idea about this because there is no evidence of any discussion at all in the development of this bill with the communities that it would affect. Indeed, what's lacking in this bill is any consideration whatsoever of local communities.

That was Senator Jenny McAllister making that point over a year ago.

She went on to say:

This bill would have an impact on people and their livelihoods. Every natural resource decision does, but this bill doesn't establish, contemplate or reference any mechanism for a conversation with community about how to approach this problem. It doesn't reference or contemplate any mechanism to balance competing demands for land use, and this should matter to conservationists as well as communities that are dependent on forestry.

I think they are very important points to make. A point I have made in relation to this debate before is that we need to balance these things. We live in the environment. We rely on the environment. We need to ensure that we look after the environment. I don't think that's an amusing fact. But we also need to consider the economy we also depend on for livelihoods.

We talk a lot about poverty. We talked about pressures on housing. We talk about the need to ensure that Australians have a good standard of living. But the net effect of this bill when taken alone, when viewed in a silo, will be a negative impact on the other elements of Australians' lives—the economic and social elements. Considering just one part of this equation—the environment—to the exclusion of everything else is when we have these negative impacts.

So, again, I commend Senator McAllister for her views on that and the call for there to be balance in this debate. Senator Fawcett, in the same debate over a year ago, talked about the effect of the bill. He referenced the effect that it would have in his home state of South Australia, with particular reference to Kangaroo Island and how the provisions of the bill, if implemented, would have an impact on the forestry industry there. He talked about how koalas weren't native to Kangaroo Island. Before the fires that destroyed much of the forest on Kangaroo Island, there were an estimated 50,000 koalas on Kangaroo Island, with roughly half in native vegetation and half in bluegum plantations. A prohibition on being able to utilise plantations for the purpose they were planted because they are getting caught up in this bill does raise the issue that we are talking about here—what the net effect would be. That comes back to that point around balance and any unintended consequences that might flow from this.

It is important to put on record the investments that were made—$50 million was invested in the future of the koala in January of this year. The former government invested $50 million to provide for the long-term protection of the koala and support recovery efforts, bringing together some of the best researchers, land managers and veterinarians. It was something that I think was much needed. The $50 million included: $20 million for habitat and protection projects; grants for large-scale activities run by natural resource management and non-government organisations; $10 million for community led initiatives; grants for local habitat protection and restoration activities; $10 million to extend the National Koala Monitoring Program; $2 million to improve koala health outcomes, which would be run through a grant program for researchers to undertake work; and $1 million for koala care, treatment and triage programs. That took the total investment in support for koalas up to $74 million between 2019 and 2022, which is not an insignificant amount of money.

I want to reference a point Senator Green made, and that was that we are currently facing the response to the review of the EPBC Act, the Samuel review, and what that will mean for environmental laws in this country. Here we are seeking to amend a bill that is probably going to look nothing like it does now. I would have thought the better thing to do would be to put the contribution into the Samuels review of koala habitat protection rather than trying to amend a bill that probably doesn't have a very long life in front of it. That is what we should be doing, looking at this holistically, and on that notion of looking at things holistically there is again the point of balance.

We live in a time where, as with last night's budget being handed down, there are many references and nods to the cost-of-living crisis, which wasn't referenced in the first speech today: the cost of energy going up, the cost of housing going up and the cost of food and fuel going up. Those things don't matter when we consider the environment as a stand-alone issue, but the reality is that every decision made with an environmental lens has an impact on how we live and how the economy functions. We cannot have this view looking at just one element of a decision-making process. We must balance environment with economy, and it goes the other way too.

We know what happens when decisions are made with a purely economic focus. I will take you down to Tasmania to the beautiful community.

Yes, I will take you down to Tasmania, Senator Farrell. You can come! Decisions 150 years ago were made with absolutely no regard to the environment. You only have to look at the river that flows through Queenstown and the decisions that were made about how to deal with mine waste. We don't do that anymore. That's not how we operate. There was no regard for the environment, and thank God we don't do things that way anymore. It's 2022. But, by the same token, we cannot make decisions purely based on environmental grounds. To save an animal is important, but to shut down industries and to remove capacity for land use, including finding land to build the million homes that this government wants to build and that Australians so desperately need, I think, is short-sighted and, indeed, something that will have devastating impact.

Again, in this debate, the opposition's position is pretty clear, as it was in 2021. Balance is required. I commend the mover of the bill for her passion matched by the rhetoric in her speech, but there are better ways to achieve the outcomes she seeks to achieve: through science, through balance and through consultation with the community.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the save the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. If you will indulge me, I will start with a personal story. I moved to Australia as a 14-year-old. We arrived in Brisbane not knowing many people in Australia but did have family friends who had moved to Cleveland, in Brisbane, a few years prior, and so I stayed with them. My first morning in Australia, a bit jetlagged, I was up early and out the door with my brothers and our friends, cruising through the parklands of Redland Bay, and I stumbled across a koala. It was head height in a tree. It had obviously been going from one tree to the next and was scampering up. I was transfixed by this incredible animal that I had seen so much on TV but never in my wildest dreams imagined I would see on my very first day in Australia. I assumed this must be pretty normal in Australia. 'There's wildlife everywhere. Koalas are everywhere.' Not so. In the 20 years since then, I think I've seen two other koalas in the wild, despite spending a fair amount of time looking for them.

Let's remember, when we talk about this bill, that we look up and see schoolchildren who have come up here to watch us. We do things in here to ensure that the children who come and tour this place, who watch proceedings here, who watch the Senate, will be able to see koalas. With the way we've been treating the environment—the way that both major parties have been treating the environment—that won't be the case. So we're in a dire situation here. The koala is a flagship species—it's a national icon—and what is happening to koalas in Australia is a travesty. When we focus on one species, like the koala, I think it's important to view it as a flagship species and remember that when we talk about protecting the koala and koala habitat, we're protecting a habitat for hundreds, probably thousands, of other species that call that same habitat home.

I appreciate Senator Duniam's sentiments about how much our attitudes towards land management have changed in Australia, and I think the koala is a great example of some of that. Australia went through a frontier period when natural resources were used as fast as they could be. Some would argue that that's still happening in areas. When it comes to the koala, between 2.5 million and three million koalas were shot to supply the fur trade in America and Europe from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Clearly there were a lot of koalas across the continent for that to happen. In contrast to these astounding numbers, the current koala population is believed to be between 40,000 to 100,000 animals. Yes, that was in the past, but we now have choices. And despite having those choices, we're not doing enough. That's why we're here today debating this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021.

Over the last 20 years since I saw that koala in Redland Bay in Queensland, we've lost one in four koalas. They are now listed as endangered and, scientists tell us, are on track to be extinct by 2050, which is not that far away. They're being pushed closer and closer to extinction by clearing, cars, dogs and disease. Yesterday, the budget committed $57 million to assist in the conservation of koalas. I commend the government on that, and I'd like to recognise this is likely due to strong advocacy from people like Deborah Tabart and the Australian Koala Foundation. I'd like to congratulate her on her work and thank her.

But it's clearly not enough. We can do more and we must do more. Senator Duniam talked about looking to science to help us solve these problems. Thankfully, we have some of the world's best environmental scientists in Australia and some of the world's leading ecologists right here in Australia. This is a mega-diverse country. It's such a privilege to be able to share this continent with an incredible array of species. It turns out that a bunch of these leading scientists actually did get together, and they said, 'What will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis?' There is a firm commitment from the new government. I welcome that commitment and I thank them for it, but it's got to be backed up with action and it's got to be backed up with cold hard cash to ensure that these leading ecologists and land managers across the country can actually deliver on that promise. The Australian people hear a lot of these big promises and platitudes. When it comes to saving the koala, Australians want action.

Going back to these leading scientists—they put together a paper called Spending to save: what will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis? The authors were Brendan Wintle, Natasha Cadenhead, Rachel Morgain, Sarah Legge, Sarah Bekessy, Matthew Cantele, Hugh Possingham, James Watson, Martine Maron, David Keith, Stephen Garnett, John Woinarski and David Lindenmayer. I'll quote:

In Australia, the drivers of extinction broadly reflect the global profile, although invasive species have played a relatively larger role compared to most of the rest of the world. A potent combination of rapid habitat destruction—

Habitat destruction is largely what this debate is about. It continues:

and introduced predators, herbivores and pathogens, has resulted in Australia losing more biodiversity than any other developed nation in the past 200 years.

These facts are sobering, and they should spur us to action.

In this paper, the authors concluded that, given what we know about the dire situation when it comes to biodiversity in Australia—and this is a 2019 paper—it will take around $1.7 billion per year to halt extinctions. So, while it's great to hear that in the budget there's $57 million for the koala—$225 million over the forward estimates—it's not nearly enough. We have to continue to invest in the protection of this incredible continent, which all of us should want to leave for future generations in a better condition, with more biodiversity, than when we entered this place where the big decisions get made.

That group of scientists go on to say:

Improving the accountability and transparency of expenditure on conservation of threatened species in Australia would also enable a better understanding of the effectiveness of conservation investment.

At the moment, because funding is so scant, our monitoring programs are not up to scratch. We simply don't have the data on many of the species that we think are threatened. We just don't have the data to back that up. Clearly, this is something that the Labor government are going to have to think a lot more about. They will need to come to the May budget with a significant increase if they are going to get anywhere close to their bold plan to halt extinctions.

I'd like to quote one of our leading ecologists, Dr Euan Ritchie, who recently, after the Labor government committed to no new extinctions, said:

It's well and good to say you love wildlife and be photographed cuddling koalas, but if you're still approving the destruction of their habitat, if you're still committing to fossil fuel use … it's very hard to see how those things are aligned with a zero-extinction ambition.

I'd really like to put that to the Senate today as we debate this important bill. Do we want to continue with the platitudes about how much we love our environment, how important it is, while we continue to chronically underfund it and give billions of dollars to a fossil fuel industry that is hauling in eye-watering profits, or are we going to change? Are we going to finally say: 'Our environment is fundamental to us thriving as people and as a country. We understand that we are part of nature; if nature goes down, we go down with it'? There's a huge element of self-interest in this. Investment in the environment is an investment in ourselves, in our futures. So let's not entertain the arguments that pit the environment and looking after the place in which we live against good lives for everyday Australians. Those two things are tied together. You can't have one without the other—as we're starting to see when we turn on the television and see people going through floods for the fourth, fifth or sixth time in a couple of seasons.

We should protect native species for their intrinsic value alone. They deserve to continue to exist. Many of them have been here for millions of years, long before humans arrived on this continent and certainly long before modern Australia, the last 200 years in which we've seen the catastrophic decline in our wildlife. But even if you don't buy the intrinsic-value argument, the economic argument is strong. It's very hard to argue with. Half of Australia's GDP, around $900 billion, is directly dependent on nature. Again, we are part of nature. If nature goes down, we go down with her. As I mentioned last night, we saw $225 million committed over four years to slow the rate of native species decline. This is a small increase in election commitment. I welcome it. More money for conservation is a good thing. But clearly we need to be upping our ambition.

A leading ecologist in Australia, Professor David Lindenmayer, and his colleagues at the ANU and elsewhere have done a huge amount of work that makes it just so clear how important it is to halt the clearing of our native forests. They are critical habitat for our native species, including koalas. They are also invaluable carbon sinks. We know that forests that are logged burn easily. It's potentially counterintuitive, but the research that shows that is very strong. So, there's a real incentive for us to bring an end to native forest logging, to move to plantations. There are enough plantations for us to make that transition. Native forest logging is largely not profitable anymore, and taxpayers are subsidising the cutting down of our native forests—in an extinction crisis, where we have a government committing to halting extinction.

This seems like a really sensible way forward to actually deal with this: bring native forest logging to an end, stop clearing koala habitat and ensure that the schoolchildren who come through this place are able to see koalas in the wild and that, in five years time, we have more koalas in Australia than we do now, and in 10 years time even more koalas. That's the kind of world I want to live in. I don't buy the argument that you can have either a prosperous economy or koalas. We're part of the environment. We're part of nature. I commend this bill and the work Senator Hanson-Young has done.

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

Recently I joined a koala habitat tree-planting day with the Koala Clancy Foundation. It was industrial-scale tree planting. As far as the eye could see, trees were going in the ground. There were about 50 volunteers on the day I was there, and over a period of a couple of weeks the Koala Clancy Foundation was planting out I think 50 or 100 hectares with thousands and thousands of trees.

It's a fantastic contribution to try to create habitat for koalas. However, the day I was there, as I was planting these trees in the ground, my mind kept going off to the fact that less than 100 kilometres away, in the Wombat State Forest—soon to be Wombat National Park—the Andrews government is logging koala habitat. They're calling it 'salvage logging', but I've seen the photos; it looks like clear-felling to me. The Victorian National Parks Association and the local environment groups knew this logging was going ahead, and it is going ahead. They did some surveys of the areas of the forest that were planned to be logged. They found in overnight surveys in these areas of forest that were being logged—areas that are about to be a national park—40 greater gliders, one powerful owl, four koalas, one boobook, one feathertail glider and seven ringtail possums. It is outrageous. I think of all the wonderful work that groups around the country like the Koala Clancy Foundation are doing, and meanwhile our precious native forest, home to koalas and such a diverse range of other species, is continuing to be destroyed by logging and by clearing.

It's not hard to understand what needs to happen to save the koala and our other precious wildlife. If there were kids in the gallery they would understand it. Koalas, greater gliders, Leadbeater's possums and other forest-dwelling animals need trees and they need forests. That's where they live. And if you destroy those forests they don't have homes to live in. Logging, just like clearing, destroys their habitats. Some species that don't need hollows in old trees might come back within 10 or 20 years, but other species like the greater glider, the Leadbeater's possum and the owl actually need the hollows in the old trees to live and to breed. That means that after a logging operation that bit of forest is not going to be of any use to them to live and to breed in for over a hundred years.

If we are going to save the koala, if we're going to save the greater glider and if we're going to save other species we need to be protecting their homes and we need to be protecting their forests. In Victoria, koalas have got it relatively easy because they don't need the hollows, and the cooler climate means there's more suitable forest. But in New South Wales and Queensland, where koalas are under threat from logging and land clearing for coalmines and urban development, it's predicted that if this continues koalas are going to be extinct within 50 years.

When we look at the impact of bushfires, as Senator Duniam was talking about, the Black Summer fires destroyed the habitat of so many of our species and so much forest. Yes, it was devastating. So what should your response be to that? You do not log and you do not clear the areas of forests that weren't burnt; they are even more precious for the animals that have survived the fires. You also make sure that you take action to reduce the risk of fire. What that means is reducing the amount of logging and stopping logging, because the science is very clear now that logging and clear-felling our forests makes them more prone to fire. It means fires will occur much more frequently and they'll be more intense when they occur. So it's pretty clear what we need to be doing. We need to be protecting habitat and we need to be stopping logging; we need to be stopping native forest logging.

In response to the lack of protection at state and federal government levels, citizens are taking it into their own hands. We've seen so many court actions in Victoria against VicForests. In fact, the latest court action was decided just yesterday, where the wonderful citizens of the Warburton Environment Group had taken action against VicForests because they were logging an endangered plant species—the tree geebung. They won, and in fact the Supreme Court judge, Justice Garde, stated in the judgement that no attempt was made by VicForests to show that it was not reasonably practicable to protect the significant number of tree geebungs which had been destroyed in harvested areas through the use of bulldozers and mechanical equipment, and that given the evidence as to the past harvesting and burning practices of VicForests it is highly likely that significant numbers of mature tree geebungs have been lost in the Central Highlands in the past through harvesting and regeneration burning. The precise extent of the loss will never be known, but on the basis of recent records it's likely to amount to many hundreds or even thousands of mature trees. This is the reality of logging in our native forests today. It should not be up to citizens to spend millions of dollars going to court to protect our heritage.

In response, we've got state governments that are in fact changing the laws to make it easier to log and changing the laws to stop people protesting, and to stop even citizen science like this. These are draconian laws that stop people from protesting and even doing citizen science. In Victoria we've got a state election in a month's time where the future of our forests is going to be a key issue. And it is only the Greens who are wanting to protect our forests, and it is only the Greens who want to end native forest destruction immediately, because that is what needs to happen if we are going to protect koalas, greater gliders, Leadbeater's possums, wollerts and all the other threatened species that call our forests home.

But of course it shouldn't be up to the states on their own to protect our forests and to have laws to protect our forests, because the Commonwealth has a responsibility. These are issues of national significance. This was found in the Samuel review into the EPBC Act, where Graeme Samuel found that our existing laws were not protecting our forests and that the regional forests agreements were not protecting threatened species. He also found that matters of national environmental significance in forests should be assessed in the same way as they would be if they were being impacted by other destructive activities.

This bill that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, is, in fact, a very modest bill. It's very reasonable. It's very moderate. It's actually not calling for an end to all native forest logging, which is what the Greens really do want to see. We do, and we're upfront that that's what we want to see. It is a modest, interim solution to protect some of the most significant and most loved species—the loved animals—of Australia. All this bill does is what the Australian public would think was already happening. All this bill does is prevent the minister from approving an action under the EPBC Act where that action involves the clearing of koala habitat. Surely that's what people would have thought already occurred—that our national environmental laws actually would protect koalas, which people love so much.

The bill also removes the exemption of regional forest agreements from the requirements of the EPBC Act where there is, may be or is likely to be a significant impact on koalas. Surely this is what the Australian community expects. People do not expect, people do not want, logging to be destroying the habitat of our precious wildlife. We don't need to be logging our forests. Plantations are already providing 90 per cent of the wood that's coming out of Australia, and in fact we are exporting 70 per cent of that plantation timber. There is so much potential to be doing more through our plantations, through farm forestry and through urban sawmilling. We don't need to be logging our forests for wood production.

We need to be ending logging immediately, for wildlife, for koalas, for all other species and for climate, because the best way—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired.

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

I seek to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.