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

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, the National risk scores for H5 bird flu for native birds and mammals, a document released on 4 August, has been referred to as the bird flu 'doom list'. It places nearly 380 species at high risk to extreme risk, including five at extreme risk. Extreme risk seems to mean a species will not survive where the virus occurs. The doom list was released to the public just over two weeks ago. How long has this list existed?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock, for the question. Obviously, our government is taking the risk of H5 bird flu extremely seriously. We started taking that seriously well before we started seeing the first cases of that strain of bird flu enter Australia's shores. It's why, for the last couple of years, our government has been investing in preparedness. I dare say that that's one of the reasons that it has taken so long for that strain of bird flu to get to Australia, noting that we are the last continent on Earth to have this strain arrive on our shores. The list that you're referring to, which some environmental organisations have referred to in the way that you have, was published by my department a couple of weeks ago. I don't know the exact date that it was first prepared, but it wasn't months earlier. It's been an ongoing piece of work. It was an important piece of work undertaken by my department to inform our preparedness exercises.

It so happens that the five species that were identified as being at extreme risk of extinction in that list have all received some form of financial support towards their resilience, monitoring or surveillance under the preparedness activities that we've been undertaking over the last couple of years—as have many of the other species listed in that list as being at high risk of extinction. That has been an ongoing piece of work that has informed the funding decisions that my department has undertaken. To give you a couple of examples, here in the ACT, we have invested $60,000 towards supporting the construction and deployment of floating island refuges across the ACT's lakes, dams and wetlands. In New South Wales, more than $1.2 million is supporting New South Wales to reduce invasive species. They're the kinds of investments that have been made to protect those very endangered species. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

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

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate it. If you are happy to give us that date at some point when your office can get it, that would be great.

According to the Biodiversity Council, this year's budget cuts on-ground nature programs by nine per cent in real terms. How can the government say that it's serious about no new extinctions and being prepared when we see a cut to on-the-ground conservation in this country?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I have seen that claim made by the Biodiversity Council, and I don't think they would be the only advocacy organisation in the country who would be seeking more funding for the issues that they care about. That is the role of advocacy groups. In a similar way, we see housing groups seek more funding for housing. We see business groups seek more assistance for business. Understandably, we see a group called the Biodiversity Council seek more funding for biodiversity. That is the nature of things.

I do reject, though, their claim about the funding that has been provided in this year's budget. I was very pleased that we were able to extend the funding for our Saving Native Species program, which, again, is investing in the resilience of endangered species. Of course, the funding that we provide through the Natural Heritage Trust is continuing as well. So I reject the figures that they have cited. I'm very proud of the efforts that this government has made to invest in our native species to back in our commitment to have no further extinctions.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

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

Minister, as you know, conservation groups have costed an urgent response of $200 million over the next two years for predator control, surveillance, wildlife response capacity and insurance populations. Will the government be coughing up $200 million to save these species, given the kind of money we see going to smelters and other places? This is our natural heritage, our environment, that we're talking about.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. Again, this government has already invested significant funds towards the resilience of our precious native species. Of the $113 million that this government has invested in bird flu preparedness, around $47 million of that has gone towards wildlife resilience. Again, you would expect the groups that are calling for this additional investment to do that. That is their role. They have, in fact, been calling for that kind of investment to occur in native species for some time, not just since bird flu arrived.

We've said that we have an open mind about the need for further funding in this space. My colleague Minister Collins is, obviously, also working with states and territories about the needs of the agriculture sector to deal with the bird flu virus having arrived here. I might say, though, that we make no apologies whatsoever for investing in the future manufacturing capacity of our country and the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on it.