Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share 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.