Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 3:32:47 to 4:01:30
The session covers the accreditation of Regional Forest Agreements and the lack of coordinated national funding for rabbit biocontrol.
Topics: Forestry, Biosecurity, Land management
Speakers: Hon Murray Watt, Hon Sarah Henderson, David Pocock, Dean Knudson, Rachel Parry, Dr Fiona Fraser, Greg Manning, Mike Kaiser, Varun Ghosh
>> Thank you, Senator Hanson Young. Um, Senator Henderson.
>> Uh, thank you very much, Chair. I just wanted to ask about the new APBC reforms due to [snorts] commence on the 1st of July this year, of course. Uh can I ask if there are any um KPIs in terms of how the changes will be monitored and assessed to determine the success of the new reforms?
Well, while the officials are preparing, um, I mean, we we made the point that some of the objectives of those reforms was to strengthen environmental protection. Um, and that's why, for example, there were provisions in the legislation requiring any environmental offsets to deliver a net gain for the environment. So, move towards restoration of the environment rather than just protect it from decline. We also said that an objective of the reform was to simplify and speed up the process for assessments and approvals of projects. As to KPIs, I suspect that would be work that would be undertaken by the new EPA once it's up and running. So, I'm not sure that we have set those at this point in time.
>> Yeah, I think um Senator, there's a couple that we'll certainly build on. We have to report now through our corporate outcomes. The our statutory time frame reporting uh as well as our compliance and enforcement reporting. So we report on our on-time assessments. Um this quarter we're up around 93% on time um statutory assessment time frames. So we will continue the um to report against those type of time frames. But we the um minister is quite right. We will be looking to build in what those other KPIs are over time for both um looking at faster approvals and uh compliance activities could be ranging in number of assessments that are undertaken through bilateral agreements for instance but right now compliance and enforcement and statutory time frames are the two that we um continue to report on.
the prime minister made claims that approvals will go from years to months from months to weeks. So with respect to projects, current projects which have been submitted and are waiting for approval, how many of those will be fasttracked under the new laws? Can you
that project by by and large projects that were already lodged or referred under the existing laws before the amendments will continue to be assessed and approved under the existing laws. The new laws will apply by and large to new projects that are put into the
>> So of those new projects um minister
>> we don't know what they are yet because they haven't been lodged.
>> Well that's what I'm asking. Have there been any new projects lodged?
>> Only only certain aspects of the amendments have commenced yet. For example, the land clearing changes. So, a range of the other changes which are geared towards faster approvals have yet to commence and therefore projects wouldn't have been lodged under those because those amendments haven't commenced yet.
>> So, has there been any attempt to expedite projects that are currently in the system for faster approvals? I mean that doesn't mean that you can't do everything to expedite approval. Surely
>> you can for starters you can provide some funding to the division of the department that does approvals which wasn't done under the coalition but was done under us. And that's why for example if you heard the question Senator Walker was just asking. We've been able to expedite the assessment and approval of tens of thousands of homes. We've done a similar exercise when it comes to renewable energy as well. uh which is why we've now approved 132 renewable energy projects around the country since we were elected in 2022. So we've taken a number of steps to speed up assessments and approvals within the existing laws and now we've passed new laws which should enable even faster assessments and approvals. So
just wondering of the applications that you currently have, how many of those applications do you expect will leave the current pathways and move into the new streamlined pathways?
>> So Senator, that will be up to the individual proponents. So we have 626 current active projects in our in our pipeline. If a proponent wishes to at a future date withdraw their application and re-refer under the under the new um legislation once they are fully in place, that will be a decision of the
proponent. Have you I appreciate that but have you received any indication as to as to which >> applicants might move from one pathway to the other? >> No. >> Have you have you given any advice in that effect?
>> Uh again we are giving advice to proponents all the time around giving them updates of reforms where they're up to ultimately that will be a matter for individual proponents where they're at in the referral and assessment process. They'll have to make those individual assessments as to whether or not it's worth their while to withdraw and
re-refer. So, so I understand that. Sorry, Mr. Ka.
>> Sorry, S. It's certainly true that there's an active discussion going on with many proponents about the possibility of doing exactly that, them withdrawing. They haven't had the opportunity to do that yet because certain parts of the legislation have not come into forces yet. But certainly I've had plenty of discussions as has you know other colleagues in the department with proponents who are actively considering doing that because of the benefits of the new legislation that is withdrawing their current application and resubmitting it under
the law. >> How many applicants have you had those discussions with?
>> We'd have to take that on notice, Senator. We we work with industry associations. We talk to individual proponents. So that's hard to
>> It's a matter that's frequently raised with us though is the point I'm making, Senator. It's not that we've recorded every one of those conversations or considerations. It will be ultimately up to the proponent. So we're not keeping score in a sense. All I'm seeking to indicate is that proponents are very alive to the possible benefits of withdrawing their current application
Uh could I just could we we on notice um with respect to the applicants where you've made given advice that they may wish to consider moving to the other uh fasttracking streamline pathway. Could we have on notice that correspondence please?
>> I think the answer that provided was that advice has not been provided to that effect. What what what has happened is that proponents in their discussions with the department have raised whether they could or could not make a decision to withdraw a project that's already been lodged and then reapply and the department correctly says yes you can if that's what you decide want to do but what I heard earlier was that advice has not been provided to to proponents that they should do so it's completely up to them
>> so I appreciate that minister but Mr. Kaiser has just confirmed that there's been a whole range of discussions in relation to current applicants moving the applications to the streamline pathway. So what I'm seeking on notice is is any correspondence in relation to discussions that have been had with proponents about how they may wish to consider moving to the streamline pathway. Any potential benefits? Uh any other considerations? So if I could just ask for that correspondence on notice, please.
>> Sure. We'll we'll check whether or not there's correspondence. I don't believe there has been. It's been more as the minister says it's it's better characterized as conversations. So proponents will come to us >> and seek an explanation from us about the benefits of the new act. We'll provide that. It won't be specific to their particular project. We'll describe the new processes of the act and we know from our conversations that a number of proponents are considering withdrawing applications and remaking them under the new act when the opportunity arises as a result of that. It will be very difficult, Senator, to provide more specific information. There've been general conversations. sorry, Senator, we haven't been pro we haven't been providing advice to proponents to do that or not to do that in their specific circumstances.
>> We provided information in relation to
the benefits of the new act and they and they're free to make up their own mind about that, but we will take on notice whether or not there's correspondence.
>> Yeah. Thank you. And also in in could I also ask for any notes of discuss telephone discussions any minutes any other um relevant written materials in relation to those discussions too please.
>> Sure senator happy to take that on notice but I just
>> I would be very surprised if there's been discussions with applicants and there has not been notes made of those discussions.
>> You're seeking to make more of my comments than I was in
>> No, I'm not sure. I'm just I'm just trying to get a I'm just genuine as I always am in my seeking an understanding as to how many applicants may wish to move to the streamline pathway and what discussions have been had.
>> Sure, we'll take
>> to either facilitate that process or to have you know various other discussions related to that. Just it just reminds me Mr. Kaiser in relation to the questions that I asked earlier in corporate about why there was no minutes taken in relation to the treasurer's economic roundt and the associated round table that was held by the department. Could I also ask on notice for uh any meeting notes or other informal notes made by any attendee or anyone else in relation to that round table too because it is very surprising that there would be no notations even made uh even if they were not formal minutes.
>> How is that different to the previous
>> about that? Because what I asked for earlier, Minister, was minutes.
>> Okay. So now you're asking for notes.
>> So now I'm asking for any informal notes. That's right.
>> Made by departmental attendees.
>> That's right.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Or or any other notes in the possession of the department uh or the minister's office too, please. Uh can I just ask how many renewable projects you expect to be submitted in the first 6 months when the new laws taken come into effect?
>> Expect to be submitted.
>> Yes, expect to be submitted. Do you have
>> So, Senator, we have um a current pipeline of 159 projects, renewable projects in our current assessment pathways. it would be unknown to us how many would be coming um when the new laws take effect. Again, that goes to down that comes down to individual proponents decisions.
>> So, I guess I'm asking because it's I'm interested to know whether some potential applicants are holding back until the new laws come into effect. Do you have any indication?
>> No, we don't
>> of that at all. >> Um I guess I go back to the question that I raised earlier. The prime minister made claims that approvals will go from years to months and [clears throat] months to weeks. I obviously the new laws are not yet into effect. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
>> So I would just um ask my colleague Mr. Gatis to just to go through and highlight those aspects of the reforms that were specifically designed to speed up to speed up approving process.
specifically asking in relation to the prime minister's claim that approvals would go through within weeks. What evidence?
>> It's probably it's probably more appropriate for me to answer a question about the prime minister's statements. the I mean I don't think even you are suggesting that the prime minister claimed that every single project will be approved in months rather than years but he was making the general point that these reforms will speed up the processes for assessment and approvals and will dramatically reduce the time frame for those assessments and approvals and that will happen and because of a number of the reforms contained we were talking earlier about bilateral agreements with states and territories. If we can enter as we intend to an agreement with a particular state where rather than a project requiring an assessment and an approval by both levels of government that a state government can do an assessment for itself and for us. that will shave years off a process and it would shave further time off uh once we get to approval bilateral agreements. There's another option available known as strategic assessments. There's another option available that known as regional plans. All of these processes are designed to shave off significant amounts of time from the assessment and approval processes while still ensuring that environmental protections remain
>> Is there any way of knowing how many bilateral agreements you'll have in place by the commencement of the new laws?
>> So, we already have five bilateral agreements in place. So, we are continuing to update those those bilateral agreements when the new laws come into effect and enter into new bilateral agreements.
>> That's what I'm talking about. The new bilateral agreements. Are you confident? Can you give us any information about when those new bilateral agreements will be in place?
>> We had an extended discussion with Senator Smith about this. I don't know if you're in the room at the time, Senator Henderson, but we made the point that it's unlikely that any of the new agreements will be reached until the new national environmental standards are finalized because those agreements are based on those standards. The aim is to finalize a number of those standards over the next few months, but negotiations have already begun with a number of states about a about agreements. We want to get it done quickly.
>> Thank Thanks, Minister Chair. I might
hand over to cusp of sharing the call
bit of time that I could have.
>> You can have three minutes, Senator McDonald, and then I'll move the call unless you'd like me to come back to you in the in the usual round. >> Come back to me. >> Thank you, Senator Pocock.
>> Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your time. So, I was just interested if any work um is happening in anticipation of the sunsetting of um the RFA exemption under the EPBC um act from mid 2027.
>> Yes, the short answer. take you through it.
>> Thank you. >> Um >> maybe while while officials come um I understand this would be you know you and [clears throat] uh DAFF and I'm interested who's leading who's leading that or is it a
>> when it when it comes to the um accredititation process that's now required of RFAS I think it would be fair to say that this department is leading that work um uh DAFF is obviously involved. DAFF also has other responsibilities along with the Department of Industry around the forestry growth fund. Um, but I received another briefing from Mr. Manning and Mr. Nudson about this just last week. So, why don't I let them take you through where we're at.
>> Yeah. And and what I would say, Senator, is it's absolutely a joint piece of work. We have different responsibilities under it, but we're doing this uh joined up. We're meeting with all stakeholders together and that's because uh the industry andor other groups have different concerns and we want to make sure we deal with them comprehensively. Um we've already begun uh stakeholder meetings with the sector uh a number of meetings with the states the the uh relevant states um and we'll continue to do so. We're building a work program that'll run most of 2026. We will want to make these decisions as soon as possible to give certainty to the community as a whole. Um and uh we are absolutely proceeding at pace.
>> Thank you. And so you you see at at this at this rate the exemption being replaced with an accredititation of that being fairly seamless.
>> So it's going to be a decision of each individual jurisdiction what sort of approval they would like. There's three possible pathways for them. There's accreditation as we were talking about with the bilateral agreements version of that. There's a regional plan and there's also a strategic assessment. each of the jurisdictions is considering which way they want to pursue. Um, but we're working collaboratively with them. The the the the protections will be effectively the same. It's just a question of which process they want to
>> And so that's New South Wales and Tasmania.
>> Uh, it's New South Wales, Tasmania, and also WA.
>> WA
>> because they still have an RFA in place even though they've ceased native logging.
>> Okay. So Victoria has no
>> No, they they've surrendered their their their accreditation.
>> Okay. >> And so how does could WA they could continue logging under an accredititation or what's the
>> remaining head of division environment policy regions and markets division. Um yes so Western Australia has an active RFA. Um I think they describe their current logging operations as ecological thinning is how they characterize it. Um, and we're looking at that obviously according to the same criteria as everything else, but yes, they could certainly continue uh those operations under the arrangements once that once we've worked through the process Mr. Nudson was outlining.
>> And could New South Wales and Tasmania continue logging under the one of the three streams that they could choose?
>> Um, yeah, same. So we're working through the states to support them um in that um the question the process that we'll run will determine people support their their logging operations but making sure that they meet the standards set out in
the new act. That's the that's the key change I guess Senator PCO is that it the the change we made through the EPBC law uh was not to stop forms of logging but it was to ensure that forestry activities undertaken under RFAS will now be required to meet national environmental standards.
>> Okay. And when will those standards? Uh
>> so we're currently preparing those standards. Um two of them uh draft draft standards for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets have just finished uh public consultation. There will then be there they'll be regulations. So there will then be some statutory consultation which we discussed with Senator Smith earlier. And the aim is to have a number of those standards in place. um by 1 July, remembering that uh the it's not until the 1st of July next year that the existing exemption sunsets >> for RFAS.
>> Yeah. And so, Minister, do you do you expect native forest logging to continue um and be able to meet the new national environmental standards?
>> That will be determined as part of this process. Um, if you know what I've said repeatedly is that this is not intended to end native forestry, uh, but any native forestry that continues beyond the 1st of July next year would need to meet the national environmental
Okay. Do you do you expect the industry will need a transition package or
>> That's why so we we at the time we announced these changes, we also announced a $300 million forestry growth fund that's being led by DAFF and the industry department. Um that's a m uh half is grants, half is concessional finance through the national reconstruction fund. um and that uh is intended to I mean more than anything to lift the value adding of the forestry sector move into higher value products. So in some cases the kind of examples we provided at the time were you know mills might seek to upgrade their equipment um such that they can process plantation timber in addition to any native timber that they process. It might be to enable them to build to to manufacture higher value products. It might be to help their train their staff to use that equipment that the fund is still under development. Um, and those departments can probably tell you more about that.
>> And so is the intention of the fund to um I guess help transition away from native forest logging or
>> We're not we're not really taking a policy position that we want to end native forestry or grow it or keep it the same. what we're about is strengthening the forestry sector and strengthening the environmental standards that apply to it. So it I guess it will be a matter for individual operators and individual states what level of native forestry they undertake going forward once they can demonstrate that those operations meet the national environmental standards.
>> Sure. But you have a policy objective of no new extinctions. We know that native forest logging poses a huge threat to forest dwelling species in this country. Um and we have a plantation industry which is is doing well and could probably do with the investment. Why won't you take a policy position to say that we have a commitment this native forest logging industry is in direct um uh I guess goes directly against our commitment for no new extinctions and we're going to transition to plantations. Why won't your government
do that? Well, as you would know, that transition is already occurring um via the market moving towards more plantation timber. Um there's been, you know, over the last decade a continued fall in the amount of native forestry that's occurring. But uh our position is that uh requiring uh native forestry and plantation forestry that occurs under RFAS to meet national environmental standards will deliver a stronger environmental outcome.
>> Thank you. I've I've got just to finish I've got some questions about rabbits. if um I'm just interested in what's happening um in terms of funding bio controls. Um it seems to me like we've dropped the ball on this as a country. Um I know rabbits are a threatening uh process for a number of species like bilbees and others and also a threatening process for some ecosystems. and um asking questions of Syro they've basically said we we'd need $3 million and 10 years to deliver the next virus um biocrol and so just answered what's happening in the department why are we in this situation where we have no virus on the horizon [snorts] and exploding
Dr. afraid there might be more place to
>> Thank you, Senator. Um, so and sorry, I was just rushing to the table. Could you just just repeat the nub of your
>> How is it that we're in a situation where we're at least 10 years away from the next rabbit bio control as a country that has a history of rabbits being a huge issue? >> How how has there not been funding for
So, Senator, there I I will um have the most significant impact, but of course impacts across across um agriculture and other sectors as well. I do believe there's funding at the moment um supporting bio control for rabbits and I think that's in the order of about $1 million through until June of this year, but again um good to talk to my um colleagues in the department of agriculture around this. So that includes 500,000 to co-invest in the next phase of the biocrol research and also just over 500,000 to monitor the efficacy of current viruses in suppressing rabbit populations. In the meantime, I guess from our department's perspective, we are also funding as as we tend to for invasive species um individual projects where rabbits and other invasives are having an impact on matters of national environmental significance. So our funding tends to focus in a project way um to be most strategic to protect threatened species and threatened ecological communities from rabbits but other invasive species as well.
>> And I guess my question comes down to strategy. Um I'm being told that it'll be $3 million to develop the next biocrol virus here in the ACT. If you add up the NCA and the AC government's investment just in the last 12 months it's almost a million dollars just on rabbits. like this is some sort of collective insanity where we don't actually collectively invest in the thing that will work at a at a continent scale. So does anyone in the department know when more money was requested for rabbit bio control?
>> I again I think it's best to take that
I'm interested. But in terms of being a threatened pro threatening process, I'd assume that you guys would say to them, "Hey, this is a pretty big deal. Can can we look to fund some some research in the space and get Cyro working on the next virus?"
>> So, I can try and take that question on notice. However, I'm aware, Senator, that for quite quite some years now, Cyro and other stakeholders have been saying biocontrol needs constant investment. um the the b rabbits are a quick breeding species and so you need to be working continually on biorol agents and and evolving those and so I think I think for many years now this is this has been on the radar and as that funding has sort of come to an end through that original program um there's been there's been many conversations about that again we haven't been as we're not the even though rabbits are a key threatening process we haven't been the lead in that bio control work but we do we do leers with our department of agriculture colleagues on that matter
>> maybe one for the minister then is that we all know rabbits are a big issue. How come we aren't investing in that ongoing research?
>> Well, I'm not sure that that's the case. I mean, what what I've heard is that the Department of Agriculture have a primary role in this. So, why don't we compare notes with them and give you a a comprehensive answer um cuz it may not be quite the picture you're uh
>> Sure. I'm just going off qu
Yeah. So, we'll we'll we'll take that on notice and work with them to get you a comprehensive answer.
>> Okay. And senator on that I do know that the environment invasives committee which is part of the national biocurity apparatus is meeting this week and that that's one of the many things that they'll be discussing and this is it's a constant sort of point of discussion over rabbit by control.
>> Senator if I can just um go back for a second to your question on the RFAS the minister's mentioned the application of the standards. There's also two things in the ledge already that are really relevant. One is the test of not having an unacceptable impact. The layman's way of saying that is you can't drive a species extinct in the wild in the country by you you undertaking an action. So your point about a number of species being at risk within forestry that's very relevant for that. >> The second test that I would say is the requirement to have a net gain. So we'll be working with the state and the forestry corporations to take a look at what they've already put in reserve and what additional might be required their forestry practices etc to make sure those two tests are met.
>> Thank you. And just on your first test um does that include the cumulative
>> It absolutely does because it's talking about the status of the species in the wild in the country. So by by definition, it's looking at everything that's happened to date and how do you make sure you have a viable population going forward.
>> Okay. And then just finally on on I know we're coming up to to lunch. Just finally on um forestry, do you have any visibility over the um methodology put forward by the New South Wales government and its passage through Iraq?
>> It it is um uh being led by our climate area, but we work very closely with them. there's an interoperability, if I can put it that way, between the nature repair market as well as the the ACU market. So, we do have some visibility of that, but it's principally being led out of our climate area.
>> Okay.
>> Who will be on later on today as well.
>> Yeah, I'll come back for that. Thank