Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Bearing in mind the time constraints on the chamber this afternoon, I will certainly keep these comments brief. The arguments for and against this disallowance motion on the threat abatement plan for disease in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi have been well canvassed and it is very important that the Senate has the opportunity to express its view on this. I note that an arrangement has been reached that debate will conclude at 6.50 pm. I would certainly urge all senators speaking on both of these disallowance motions to keep their comments short so that the Senate does have the opportunity to bring both motions to a vote and we get to hear the express views of the Senate on both motions.

The government does not support the motion to disallow the threat abatement plan for disease in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi (2009). The plan provides a strong framework for advancing the coordination of management of P. cinnamomi and for strengthened training, education and communication with both professional land managers and the public. It has a detailed set of actions and performance indicators. It identifies high-priority actions, including improving monitoring systems, investigating natural selection for P. cinnamomi tolerance in high-risk groups of plants for areas of high-conservation value, and developing a national risk assessment process for land owners and managers.

The plan builds on and significantly strengthens the original 2001 plan. It reflects the outcomes of a comprehensive review of that plan and has been developed through a robust, science based, transparent process. The plan was prepared by the Centre for Phytophthora Science and Management at Murdoch University in Western Australia. Consultation on the plan was undertaken with state and territory government agencies and through a three-month period of public consultation, during which 18 submissions were received. The plan has also been examined and approved by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee and has been developed in accordance with relevant legislative requirements.

I will respond briefly to some concerns that have been raised by senators. It has been suggested that a more preventative approach is required that protects not only threatened communities and flora but also communities and flora that may become threatened as a result of P. cinnamomi. I am happy to advise that the plan as drafted does in fact do this. Specifically, goal 2 of the plan is:

Minimisation of the spread of P. cinnamomi infestation so that further species and ecological communities do not become threatened.

With regard to funding for the plan, the plan provides a framework for directing activities across a range of Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies and private organisations. Commonwealth funding is provided in that context to support the activities of others and to undertake priority activities and, like all plans, there is no set amount of funding committed. However, funding is made available through a range of sources, including $2.2 million under Caring for our Country and significant funding of approximately $2.4 million has also been spent on implementation of actions identified in the 2001 threat abatement plan. In addition to this, in 2006-07 and 2007-08 around $4.2 million was spent on natural resource management activities aimed at reducing the impacts and spread of phytophthora. That makes a total of at least $6.6 million of Commonwealth funds spent on phytophthora related activities since 2001. The Commonwealth expects that state and national park agencies will continue to fund and manage their state lands in accordance with the plan and does not provide funding for these state responsibilities.

Concerns have also been raised that the plan does not appear to have mechanisms to compel compliance with planned guidelines. However, the EPBC Act requires that Commonwealth agencies act consistently with the plan; otherwise, there are no legal mechanisms available under current legislation to compel compliance. In fact, the EPBC Act does mandate voluntary cooperation by states and the act states that, if a threat abatement plan applies outside Commonwealth areas in a particular state or self-governing territory, the Commonwealth must seek the cooperation of the state or territory with a view to implementing the plan jointly with the state or territory to the extent to which the plan applies in the state or territory. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, has written to his state and territory counterparts regarding the plan, requesting cooperation in its implementation.

Concern has also been raised that there does not appear to be an audit mechanism that can be used to evaluate success and provide accountability. I am pleased to inform the Senate that the EPBC Act 1999 requires that plans be reviewed at intervals of not longer than five years and that, consistent with that, the 2001 plan was reviewed by the Centre for Phytophthora Science and Management at Murdoch University in Western Australia.

Finally, a query has been raised as to whether, if the Senate disallows this plan, the original 2001 plan will continue in force. While that is correct, the actions in the 2001 plan either have been completed or do not reflect the latest research. Consequently, there will no longer be an authoritative statement on the environmental effects of phytophthora nor on the best methods of responding to this threat. It is questionable whether the 2001 plan remains a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate this key threatening process as section 270A(2) of the EPBC Act requires. If that were found to be the case, the minister might need to consider revoking the 2001 plan.

The government strongly believes the plan before the Senate provides a strong foundation for managing Phytophthora cinnamomi in relation to both existing impacts and future threats. Funding and other support is available to ensure implementation. Without the plan, there will not be an effective framework in place to manage Phytophthora cinnamomi. For these reasons the government encourages the Senate not to disallow the plan.