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

There are two issues I wish to cover today in talking about matters of public interest. One of these issues came to the fore during the summer break, and that was whaling. The other, which is also very close to my heart, was the Western Australian government proposal last week to put a road through the heart of the Fitzgerald River National Park. The road would go from Bremer Bay through to Hopetoun. The Premier proposed this in response to BHP closing its laterite nickel mine in Ravensthorpe. The closure resulted in 1,800 workers being put off, which will have a dire impact on both Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun—Hopetoun in particular, where 200 new houses were built to accommodate those workers. The Premier’s response is: ‘Let’s build a road from Hopetoun to Bremer Bay’. That will not only cost a fortune but, more importantly, is complete environmental vandalism that will destroy the wilderness and biodiversity values of what is acknowledged as one of the most important national parks in Australia—in fact, in the world—because it also happens to be at the heart of one of the world’s 25 biodiversity hot spots.

How does the Premier propose to so-called ‘help’ these workers and these areas? By building a road that will damage the very thing that is encouraging people to come to that region—that is, the biodiversity of the Fitzgerald River National Park. This park is a biosphere reserve under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program convention and forms part of a global network of these biosphere reserves. Australia is a signatory to this international convention and we believe it has obligations to uphold the protection of this area. Although the Man and the Biosphere Program convention does not have the same legislative backing as the World Heritage convention, the migratory species in Australia convention or the Ramsar convention, we believe that it does confer obligations on the Australian government to look after the values of this area. This area was declared as a biosphere reserve in 1978. There was a local committee formed in 1986 to look after the area.

I will put on the record that I am deeply attached to this park. I used to live very close to it and I know the park very well. As I said, the biosphere reserve, or the Fitzgerald River National Park, is one of 25 biodiversity hot spots around the world. These are called biodiversity hot spots because they have some of the richest and most threatened areas in the world. They are the richest in terms of plant diversity and biodiversity. The park contains 250 plant and animal species identified as rare or geographically restricted. It is extremely rich in flowering plants as well as lichens, mosses and fungi. It is a relatively small park—it is 330,000 hectares—but it contains 1,900 species of plant, nearly 20 per cent of the total number of plants in Western Australia. So nearly 20 per cent of the plants in Western Australia are found in this small park. It has some of the greatest biodiversity not only in Australia but on the planet. We have lost so much in Australia and so much globally, yet we are still proposing archaic responses such as, ‘Let’s bulldoze a road through and destroy more of the world’s biodiversity.’

Sixty-two of the plant species are found only in the Fitzgerald River National Park, with a further 48 species more or less confined to the park. These include the royal hakia—and if you have ever seen a royal hakia you will never forget what it looks like; it is one of the most gorgeous, most flamboyant plants you could come across—as well as the scarlet and showy banksias, feather flowers, bell-fruit mallees and many other eucalypts, bottlebrushes and pea flowers that are found nowhere else on the planet. This diversity of plants is a haven for native animals and birds. It is home to 19 species of native mammals, making it an extremely important reserve for that reason as well because increasingly those mammals are found nowhere else.

Many of these species are dieback prone. I realise that dieback is a problem in the east but not such a problem in Western Australia, so those in the west may not appreciate that when people who care about nature hear about a species being dieback prone it sends shivers up their spine because once it is in an area it is almost impossible to get rid of. A lot of plant species in Western Australia have already been devastated by the various forms of dieback. Phytophthora is the most commonly known species, but it is not just phytophthora. The very fact alone that these species are prone to dieback should take this road off the agenda, because putting a road through will open that area up to dieback. This diversity of plants, as I said, is a haven to native animals and birds. Several species of mammals thought to be extinct have recently been rediscovered in the park. These include the dibbler, which is a small and secretive carnivore with distinctive white rings around its eyes, and the heath rat, which was thought for many years to be extinct until it was found in the park in the 1980s. There is the Shortridges native mouse as well as the woylie and the tammar wallaby.

Very importantly, there is the ground parrot, which is the best known of the three endangered birds that are in the park. The ground parrot was once found across the whole of the south-west coast but is now restricted to very small areas in the Fitzgerald River and the Cape Arid national parks. Of course, they are restricted in these areas because we have cleared so much of our native vegetation throughout Western Australia and in that south coast area. The ground parrots are ground-nesting birds. They are threatened by predation from foxes and cats as well as by altered fire regimes. Again, fire regimes in this national park are extremely important because there are so many fire sensitive species. Unfortunately, we have had a number of wildfires through that area, but the management try to manage the park in order to reduce the spread of wildfires. The proposed road threatens critical habitat for the ground parrot within this park.

There is also the western bristlebird, which is another well-known threatened species in Western Australia. As I touched on previously, this area is prone to dieback. I understand it was unfortunately introduced into the park when a track called the Bell Track was pushed through this area to facilitate mining exploration quite some significant period of time ago. DEC, the Department of Environment and Conservation, in Western Australia has spent over $1.3 million just recently trying to eradicate the dieback from the park that was caused by the Bell Track.

If this project goes ahead, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that dieback will be introduced, and it will be introduced into areas of the park that it would never otherwise be introduced to. Of course, the Premier uses the excuse that the park is not being properly managed, that there are illegal tracks through there at the moment and therefore if we build a road we will manage it better. How about putting more money into managing the park so that you do not have illegal access to these areas? Allow the park to be properly managed. Over a significant period of time, the management resources for this park have been reduced to the point where there are not enough rangers there anymore and there are certainly not enough resources going to the management of the area. You do not try and destroy an area and then say, ‘Okay, we’ll fix it up by destroying it further.’ That is absolutely ridiculous. To try and imply that a road going from Bremer Bay to Hopetoun is going to solve all the economic problems of the south coast is absolutely ridiculous. It gives false hope to the local community. Also, if you draw an increased number of tourists to the park by putting that road through, you will certainly be drawing the tourists away from the towns of Jerramungup and Ravensthorpe. If there is any gain, what you gain on the one hand those towns are going to significantly lose.

The other important aspect of this park is its wilderness values, because it is on the south coast and management plans have been put in place. The management plan takes a zoned approach and has in it a wilderness zone. The wilderness zone is particularly important not only for its wilderness value but because it protects so many of the rare and endangered species and the biodiversity of the park. Putting a road through will destroy the wilderness value and is completely contrary to the various management plans for the area that have been in place for a significant period of time. We believe the Premier’s response was a knee-jerk response to the very unfortunate situation in Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun.

There is absolutely no doubt that there need to be money and resources injected into the area; the Greens have no problem with that. We do not have any problem with the approach of sustainable tourism. In fact, we strongly support ecotourism and we believe that a focus on tourism in the park would be a good idea, but invest in the facilities that are there: put in new facilities where the access is already available and where the management plan says those facilities should be put in.

In fact, develop a sustainable tourism plan for the whole of the South Coast. The conservation groups are already one step ahead of the Premier and have suggested a sustainable tourism blueprint for that region. You could not only sustainably improve the infrastructure in the Fitzgerald River National Park but you could then link that infrastructure to other natural areas on the south coast, of which we are blessed with a number. Look at developing the Great Western Woodlands proposal, a proposal to ensure the protection of the western woodlands, another very important ecosystem. A little bit of forethought in this could have very positive outcomes in increasing visitation to the area based on its natural values, which are unique. They are found nowhere else on the planet.

The Premier says it is going to cost $50 million. That figure was developed a significant period of time ago. I fail to see how you can build a sealed road through that very rugged, 80-kilometre area for $50 million when it necessitates putting bridges over at least three or four estuaries, which would be engineering feats in themselves. I doubt very much that the Premier has actually looked at the figures in any meaningful way. Of course, they are calling on the federal government, which is another reason I am bringing this issue here—besides the fact that I think the federal government needs to be looking after the biodiversity of that region. They want to apply for federal government funding for this road under infrastructure development. It is completely inappropriate to invest in a road that will destroy an utterly unique biodiverse area that the federal government has the obligation to ensure is protected.

The Greens urge the federal government to send this proposal back to the Premier saying it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable and the government will only invest in sustainable development in that area. It is a completely inappropriate knee-jerk reaction for the Premier to propose a road around an area to encourage tourists to come and see the area when the road itself will destroy the very things that the Premier wants tourists to come and see. The message is: go home and redo your plan, Premier, and come up with a truly sustainable tourism management strategy for the south coast.

In the last minute I have available I will refer very quickly to the IWC announcement that was made yesterday of a possible compromise with Japan on whaling to the Fitzgerald River. I have stood on many occasions at Point Ann looking at the glorious whales directly off the coast of the Fitzgerald River National Park in Western Australia. The IWC yesterday revealed its open secret that it was proposing a compromise with Japan that would facilitate them getting out of the south coast but entrench coastal whaling. My question to the government here is, very strongly: at what level were you involved in those discussions? The government has to distance itself completely from any compromise on whaling that would see Japan simply moving its whaling from the Southern Ocean to the northern Pacific. A whale is important whether it is in the Southern Ocean or in Japan. Japan gets what it wants. All along it has wanted to be able to undertake commercial whaling. This so-called compromise—‘sell-out’ is more the case—by the IWC simply entrenches commercial whaling for Japan. It is unacceptable.

Australia has to completely distance itself from any such compromise. Australians are very clear: no whaling. It is not ‘no whaling just in the Southern Ocean’; it is ‘no whaling’. Australia should have nothing further to do with these negotiations, should distance itself from these negotiations, and should be very clear that it is an unacceptable compromise. I am aware that conservation groups around the world are writing— (Time expired)