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

I can assure the Senate that the Greens are keen to have a vote on both of these motions, so I will try and sum up and conclude this debate as quickly as possible. I point out that although the government just outlined that $6 million will be spent—from 2001, I think they said—scientists estimate that expenditure of around $10 million per year is required. So the expenditure the government is committing is way below what is needed to address this threat. I articulated during our previous discussion on this motion the impact that phytophthora is having. Scientists consider that it should be listed as one of our top three threatening processes in Australia. I have articulated that it is not just a Western Australian problem; it is also a South Australian problem, a Tasmanian problem and a Victorian problem—at least; it could be spreading to other areas. In concluding this debate I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, but I would like to go to specific arguments that the government raised around what happens if they disallow this and around the threat abatement plan.

The government claims that the new threat abatement plan contains a detailed set of actions and performance indicators against each objective. It also attempts to suggest that if the 2009 plan is disallowed there will be no compulsion to carry out the new priority actions. However, even if the plan is in place, there is still no compulsion for anyone to carry out the new priority actions. As the government acknowledges, there is nothing within the EPBC Act which compels states or territories to implement a threat abatement plan. This means two things. Firstly, it tells us that whether we continue with the outdated 2001 threat abatement plan or whether we put in place the inadequate 2009 threat abatement plan it will make little practical difference to phytophthora management activities carried out by land managers and state agencies.

Secondly, it tells us that if the Commonwealth government is serious about making a difference in the management of our biodiversity and natural resources through threat abatement plans or other mechanisms then it needs to convince state and territory land management agencies to play along. This is in fact what they used to do through bilateral arrangements and joint funding under previous programs like NHT and NAP. However, under the brave new world of Caring for our Country, they have dispensed with the need for bilaterals with state agencies. If we were serious about getting environmental outcomes then we would commit these resources. If we were serious about getting the bang for our buck then the more investment in resources we can leverage from state and territory agencies, land management and the private sector, the better.

If you take the time to look through the threat abatement plan, you will see that it does not contain any of the things that you or I or anybody working in day-to-day land management would normally expect to see in any sort of management plan. It does not contain any specific targets or measurable outcomes. It does not identify any completion dates or any resources to be deployed. There is none of the who, what, where, when or how that is needed to develop a plan that is deliverable. For decades we have known that we need to base natural resource management planning on ‘smart goals and objectives’. These are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. The goals and objectives of the threat abatement plan are none of these things.

The government said that it is questionable that the 2001 plan remains a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the key threatening processes of phytophthora as required under section 270A(2) of the EPBC Act. However, it is equally questionable—as we have shown—that the 2009 plan is a feasible, effective or efficient way of abating the spread of phytophthora. It is not likely to be effective because it does not contain resources to achieve smarter objectives. It is not likely to be efficient because, as we have shown, focusing exclusively on threatened ecological communities misses the low-cost options of preventing the spread of dieback and results in more expensive and less effective treatment and containment actions once phytophthora has already spread to adjoining areas. Given what we have said about the magnitude of this threat and the likely scale of its impacts, it is not likely to be feasible to manage, contain and abate this threat without committing resources or identifying actors and targets.

Finally, there is a suggestion that, if this threat abatement plan is disallowed, the more up-to-date scientific information it contains and the work done to update the 2001 plan will be wasted. However, we note that it has taken an unusually long time to get to where we are now with the 2009 plan. Work was done in 2006 to review the old 2001 threat abatement plan, leading to three months of consultation to develop the plan in 2007. That plan, developed in 2007 from consultation in 2006, was released when I asked questions about the plan in 2009. Between this so-called current work in 2007 and now, considerable work has been done on phytophthora management—for example, the work that was released just recently in Western Australia, the updated dieback atlas.

There have been some important discoveries made and lessons learned since 2007 which are not in the 2009 plan. This work, plus the work that informed the current plan, has been communicated, and continues to be communicated, between researchers and land managers through all the usual channels of communication. It will not be wasted if the current plan is disallowed any more than the extent to which it is being wasted by the fact that it has not been included in the new threat abatement plan. The fact is that this threat abatement plan lacks the necessary teeth to make any difference whatsoever. We believe that, to be truly effective, it certainly needs to contain at least the information current as of 2009, not the information that was current in 2007.

In conclusion, the scale of this problem is much larger than is recognised. The level of the response is simply not appropriate. We need to take a preventative approach. We need a strategic approach that protects ecosystems before they become threatened—in other words, have a fence at the top of the cliff rather than an ambulance down the bottom. We cannot hope to protect threatened ecological communities in isolation. A threat abatement plan with no commitment to action and no resources is an empty gesture and we simply need to do better.

We suggest that more needs to be done to make a difference, to respond to this very serious threat posed by what is commonly called dieback. The best thing for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to do would be to put in a new draft plan with appropriate resources—to develop it, put it on the table and use it as a basis for ongoing negotiations on specific outcomes and targets with the states. Otherwise we risk getting ourselves in a position, in coming years, where phytophthora has spread to a significant number of vulnerable ecosystems and we will be powerless to stop its spread, creating even more threatened ecological communities in high-value conservation areas. We will find ourselves facing an even more serious biodiversity crisis if dieback is allowed to spread and the government does not commit adequate resources to deal with this problem and does not have a truly efficient and effective threat abatement plan.