Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 5:46:38 to 6:51:13
The committee examines federal funding for wildlife rescue and inaccuracies in water quality modeling for the Great Barrier Reef.
Topics: Water management, Animal welfare, Tourism
Speakers: Sarah Hanson-Young, Hon Murray Watt, Dr Fiona Fraser, Larissa Waters, John Foster, Dean Knudson, Dr Ilse Kiessling, Hon Sarah Henderson, Jackie Raynor, Katrina Maguire, Michelle Dumazel, Miss Belinda Jago, Rachel Parry, Speaker 23, Varun Ghosh
>> thank you. Um, I've got some questions around uh wildlife um support. >> Wildlife rescue. Um, I'd like to know how much funding goes to supporting wildlife rescue across the country, federal money.
>> Thank you, Senator. So, I'll refer to the saving koalas fund again, which is a 70 uh uh $6.9 million fund. Um so a portion of that does go to uh wildlife care. Um what I'll firstly say is that um wildlife care is primarily the responsibility of states and territories but the Commonwealth does recognize the importance of the role that um wildlife carers play um and so does put an investment of 19.39 million into um projects that go primarily towards that
>> across various pro is that 19.39 million yeah from various programs. Uh,
no. I'm just referring to the saving koalas.
>> Oh, just out of the saving koala. So,
>> yes. >> so those
>> so 19 million of the saving koala fund >> which is about to end.
>> Yes.
>> Goes to wildlife rescue.
>> Yes. There is a component that would also go from the local environmental projects uh program which I can talk to as well. Um I'll I'll start with the saving koalas fund. Um so that goes to uh wildlife hospital service upgrades, expanded services and also vaccine research. Um and we have uh eight seven projects.
>> Seven projects and what will happen on June 30?
>> Uh on June 30, you would expect that those projects would have concluded um the scope of what was required under that original funding allocation. Um so uh yes we are working with them at this point in time uh to monitor their progress towards um that completion.
>> Could I ask on notice for the status of those seven projects and how much has been sent spent on each one? I I can't imagine there's not going to be wildlife that needs saving. Uh there's going to be no wildlife that needs saving or protecting or caring for come July 1. So what happens then?
>> Well, it's the same issue we were talking about that we've got to make decisions about which programs continue and which ones don't. >> So this may well continue whether it be in exactly the same form or in a different form.
>> Yeah.
>> And Senator, I would note that this particular fund, the Koala fund runs till 2627. So a year after the saving native
close the door. Uh I thought Miss Raina said it ended on June 30 as well.
>> The saving native species component um ends on 30th of June 2026. There is a component that comes in under the natural heritage trust fund that's mainly for like the data monitoring and that that will continue.
>> So how much of the 19.39 million is from >> which which bucket of money is that coming from?
>> Yes, that that actually comes in under the saving native species uh bucket of money. the 19.39.
>> So that will end.
>> Yes. Uh but as I mentioned before, um Senator, we do have the local environmental projects uh program as well that that's um commenced in 202526. There are five projects that are based in New South Wales and Queensland. They total 9.995 million, so $10 million. Um and they are are geared towards supporting koalas and wildlife hospitals as well. And can I
have a breakdown of how that money is being spent, please?
>> Uh yes, I'll be happy to take that on notice. Uh at this stage, uh those projects are subject to negotiations with the business grants hub around the scope of those projects. Um and so as those um those projects are entered into and grants are entered into, we'd be able to provide um details about them. But I'm happy to provide uh more of the general sort of scope of what those projects what the commitments um aimed to achieve.
>> Um I imagine you'll have to take this on notice, but I would like a breakdown of in total how much uh federal money has been spent on wildlife rescue in the last 12 months, >> the last four years and the last 10 is there a part of the department that's specifically related to wildlife rescue? >> Is it someone's job to be across that in particular?
>> Our our remit senator is to focus on matters of national environmental significance. So where we get engaged in wildlife rescue is particularly where it's impacting species which are listed under the EPBC act and the koala is one example of that. So that that is not our our day job to deal in wildlife rescue. There's dozens of species that come into wildlife centers every day which are not threatened with
>> I understand that but I just want to make make understand there's no one who specifically is in charge of wild how we fund that how we monitor that how we're looking specifically at rescue.
>> No that that's right. However, the biodiversity conservation division with our focus on recovery of threatened species and our programs directed to that does engage in that at times. Hence, we have a number of staff who deal with that depending on the species which might be impacted.
>> I'm I'm Senator, I'm aware of some funding that goes towards wildlife rescue from other departments as well. So for example um I've forgotten the exact name of the fund but it's the regional growth fund or it's one of the regional funds that's administered by the department of infrastructure etc and regional development. I know that they provided at least one grant to a wildlife rescue operation to was more of a capital grant
>> capital.
>> Um it may well >> Yeah. So it may well be that uh that department has funded other projects like that as well, but we can see what we we can find.
>> That would be helpful. Thank you. Um is the department aware of how much private money, philanthropic money, private money is being spent on wildlife rescue across the country? >> You got a sense of of that?
>> No, we don't. Senator and I I don't expect we would be able to either like like many of our sort of wild animal issues. These are funded either by the Commonwealth government by states and territories and in case of wildlife care that would be substantially the t states and territories but also a number of other actors. So we don't have those figures and I don't think we would be able to get them either. Um, so there's
there's no work being done in the department about trying to work out how much where the support for wildlife rescue is coming from beyond government
coffers. It it's handled very differently across the different states and territories who have the responsibility for wildlife care and wildlife rescue. where the department got quite involved in in working with that sector and across different different states and territories and different agencies was after the Black Summer bush fires um which was which was exceptional circumstances as as we can all agree but I guess with the resources that we have available and noting noting what the remit of the Australian government is we're very much focused on where wildlife rescue and and wildlife hospitals and the such intersect with species which are threatened with extinction and how we can most
even for those uh endangered species that are you know being brought into to um wildlife centers. I mean vast number of those facilities are not they get they get some state government funding but most of them are privately funded philanthropic volunteer-based you know vets donating their time their resources their facilities I I surely that's part of you need to understand where that support is coming from where those resources are if you're engaged in stopping these animals from going extinct.
>> I guess for any individual threatened species or threatened ecological communities, there are a range of threats and often those threats which lead to those individual animals coming into wildlife centers are not the most significant threat on the future of that animal. That is not to say it's not a very important issue and that we don't engage on it, but we're focused on where we can most effectively support the long-term recovery of those species. And and for some species that does involve engaging with with wildlife care for those species to be rehabilitated, then carefully released back into the wild so that they can thrive and reproduce and there's habitat there for them to do that. That's that's not the case for for many species which are bought in. And so we're really focused on I guess addressing the threats with some which are most impactful for our threatened species. That often relates to um invasive species in the wild. um habitat availability, improved fire regimes, transllocations. Um at times
>> I more more wildlife species are in need of uh support and when they're injured because they're, you know, having to cross roads because their habitat's been destroyed or they have to or they're, you know, finding themselves into suburbs that used to be, you know, vegetation.
>> Absolutely. and they're important issues and they're hugely distressing for for people who live in these communities and are and are you know impacting koalas or where flying foxes are suffering and things like that.
>> So is there any data that the department has about uh wildlife rescue at a national level? If you got a any kind of overarching um you know landscape view of where uh threatened species are facing um injury more than others. Is there um is there any data that the department collects or has access to?
>> So again because we don't lead on wildlife rescue and wildlife care we we don't collect data on those species. Is
that something that the the the the new information uh agency could help with?
What what I I'm not sure about that, but what I would say is the Department of Agriculture does have a funding arrangement with Wildlife Health Australia, which is an independent sort of leadership organization which operates nationally um in close collaboration with states and territories, which provides capacity and advice and also report back to government particularly on wildlife disease and wildlife incidents and things like that. So we don't we don't lead on that contract and I don't think they would gather that sort of information on on the background and the different funding arrangements but we certainly work in very close partnership with Wildlife Health Australia and the Department of Agriculture to to um to ensure that that that organization Wildlife Health Australia is is supported when it comes to um providing that capacity and support and advice and veterinary advice.
can I come back to the saving koala
>> Senator Henderson.
>> Um the save the koala fund that is so it runs out or the significant amount of funding for it runs out in uh June this parts of that program what what programs under that fund then uh rely on that money that that finish on uh June 30.
>> Uh so Senator the parts of the program that come in under that that uh uh saving native species fund will be the koala health initiatives that we just talked about earlier. So we'll be providing a breakdown of those projects and the progress of those. >> Um and then we also have uh a a a number of other uh projects as well around um habitat restoration and for crossing funding as well that comes to a close at that point. So they are separate projects and we are also monitoring those pro progress. >> Okay.
>> Um I know the chair wants to move on. I've just got while I've got you um um Miss Fraser, uh could I ask you um what work is being done? Where are things up to with um nominating um endangered species as a result of the toxic algoloom in South Australia?
>> So, Senator, it's actually uh Dr. Kiessling.
>> Oh, okay. Right. So the threatened species commission is not having anything to do with the algal bloom.
>> Uh no but you asked about the question of the listing of species and their their the level of endangerment that's the threatened species scientific committee which
>> Okay. >> Okay. I'll come back to that. Um Dr. Fraser have you been engaged at all on the toxic algal bloom and the impact on native species?
>> Yes. Yes I have senator.
>> Okay. What have what what's been your
involvement? I guess there's involvement across many areas in the biodiversity division um on the toxic algal bloom. Part of it is the speing species listings work which is overseen by the threatened species scientific committee and that part of the department. My area focuses particularly on species which are already listed as threatened with extinction or species which would which could become threatened with extinction. So we've had close contact with um our marine division who are leading on this work um I would say weekly contact on these issues um including with the South Australian government but also um have been particularly involved in issues such as the um the giant cuttlefish protection um and helping to run workshops with South Australia and with other experts to um to understand the risk assessment for that for that species which as you would know is not listed as threatened with extinction but there was a significant risk that that would become the case if the algal bloom reached up there. So looking at measures we could take which the bubble curtain was one of those
>> which has now been found to not be useful.
>> No I don't think that's the experts can come to the table on that senator but I don't think that was the case. The elbow bloom did not reach um that area thankfully.
>> So therefore it wasn't used.
>> Well it wasn't used but of course it would have been catastrophic if the bloom hadn't reached that area. So having having that um that infrastructure in place to potentially protect that unique um aggregation was
very important. >> How many species are um are already nominated as threatened or facing extinction that are being impacted by the toxic bloom?
>> I don't know that Senator you'd have my my colleagues from the um Oceans branch will be able to answer that. I don't know that off the top of my head.
And have you received any extra money to in terms of your work and these species that are now in even you know uh further
my office works
>> further fur further damage further their habitats being destroyed they've got no food to eat they're you know
>> so I I'm a bureaucrat in the department of in the environment department and I work very closely with my colleagues in the um in the marine division um who and um Miss JAGO can attest to that. Uh so we don't separately have money that we provide to um to events such as that whether they be floods or fires or algo blooms. But what we do do is work in partnership with with our colleagues in other parts of the department and the states and territories where these events are happening to understand how we could assist and where we have money available um to be able to direct them to some of those efforts. So the saving native species program has been used to respond to natural disasters such as that um including the alkal bloom.
>> How much of that has been spent on the
>> So as you know we've um pretty much committed the entire of the saving native species program and I think about $250,000 went towards the um the cuttlefish um the cuttlefish um infrastructure. However, um some of our work under the um H5 bird flu um mitigation fund has also gone towards um building resilience of populations. So there was about 1.2 million from the bird flu fund which has gone towards building resilience of the Australian sea line with a focus on those populations in South Australia which of course some of those populations are being impacted by the algoloom and there's early um evidence of that and may be impacted by H5 bird flu if it arrives in Australia. So those funds have been directed towards that which have multiple benefits um for for those species.
>> Okay. Can you take on notice how much um uh money has been spent in relation to [clears throat] your work the threatened species um element of it for the toxic algoloom?
>> It's 250,000 for the um for the cuttlefish bubble curtain of of administered funds under the saving native species program and 1.2 million under the H5 bird flu initiative.
>> I think we committed also Senator to come back to you earlier on on the overall expenditure for uh the algo blue from the commonwealth as well as what's been expended. We can break that out by relevant program so you can see >> what's related to uh the areas of most concern to you.
>> Okay. And did you have something for me
>> on the listing?
>> Sorry, Senator, would you like to could you please repeat your question for me?
Well, my questions were around um uh which animals had been up were either um have already been listed as endangered or uh threatened species or are in the process of looking to be uplisted as a result of the toxic algal bloom.
>> Certainly, Senator, so there are a host there are 2,300 I can give you the exact number. Uh there are many many species that are already listed under the EPBC act. 2315 to be precise. Many of those will occur in South Australian waters and will have been impacted by the algal bloom. They are species that are already listed. In terms of species that have been specifically listed in in um as a result of the toxic algal bloom, there are none that have yet been listed. There is a public nomination process which you indicated earlier which is currently open >> closing on uh the 31st of March. uh that is an opportunity for the public to bring forward species um plants and animals, communities as well uh that may have been impacted by the algal bloom to the point where they are at risk of extinction. Uh it is only after the public nominations uh close that we will be assessing those uh nominations to see whether or not they would be eligible for listing under the act.
>> Um could you give me a list of those that are already listed?
>> The entire list of 2,300. know those
that would be that that I assume the department has an understanding of which are of that 2,000 odd. I mean it is just terrible that we've got that many species that are already listed um in such perilous state but I'd like to know which of those are impacted by the toxic
algal bloom. Senator, what we can do is provide you a list of those species that occur in the area where the toxic algal bloom exists. Uh so we are we would not be able to give you a definitive answer of all of those species that have been directly impacted by the bloom but certainly we can give you a list of those species that occur in the area.
>> That would be that would be helpful but surely you must I mean I come back to Dr. Fraser's point the the the main job in relation to species here is those that are um on this list because they're the ones that we have to you know that you that as a department your job is to look after. So you must have a sense of which not just in that the area the geographical area of the toxic algal bloom but there must you you must be monitoring getting data coming through that says this particular species is you know is being impacted because they're washing up dead on people's beaches.
>> So Senator as as I said earlier on this is a joint program with the South Australian government. So, I'm going to turn to Miss Maguire just to walk you through exactly trying to get at your point. My the short answer is I don't think the state government has yet finalized the complete list of species impacted etc. But I
>> I don't think the state government is any I am frustrated by that. I am frustrated by that.
>> I'm happy I'm happy for Ms. Maguire to um answer the question, but what I'd point out is that there is a lot of anecdotal information and there's photographic evidence of various species washing up on be beaches. I'm not aware that anyone whether it be in the federal government, South Australian government or elsewhere has done the proper analysis of you know exactly what the impact is in numerical terms and that's the work that will need to occur. The other point I guess I'd make is that in addition to the over 2,000 species that are already listed, unfortunately, it is possible that there may well be other species that have not yet been listed that may become listed as a result of this process. And that was that was the whole point of bringing forward that review was we get cracking on recovery.
>> I I understand, but I'm I'm a I would Let's hear from Miss Maguire. I I I'd like to know if anyone is looking at this.
>> Yes.
>> Well, we've started a process to do so
>> and the process isn't yet finished.
>> So, Senator, um I would have to take the question on notice to answer in full, but I can give you a few examples of uh some of the species that are protected that we know are being impacted, but it it won't be the full list. So, um, obviously the giant cuttlefish, as Dr. Fraser said, the Australian sea lion, uh, great white sharks. There have been recordings of, um, uh, nine white shark carcasses, um, little penguins and the Indo-Pacific bottl-nose dolphin. So um we have data uh that's been coming through that indicates those species have been impacted but the range of programs some of which we ran through earlier today as well as the uh national environmental science um projects we mentioned are of course building our knowledge base about what impacts are occurring on what species but as the minister said that is going to take some time obviously to get a full picture
>> and what resources are currently within the federal department, your department to help make that happen as fast as
>> Well, I think the funding we've provided under those uh three packages as well as um
>> but that was money that was given to the South Australian government it and yet it is your responsibility as the federal to do what you can to stop these species going extinct. So what where is the extra resources for the Commonwealth Department to do its job in a way that is timely enough to save these animals
funding the Australian government provided to South Australia is about a partnership investing in a coordinated way in the research and science so we don't have two different jurisdictions um running off in different directions. um and also participating in the South Australian Science Advisory Panel to prioritize where work needs to be done in the shorter term and planning for the longer term.
>> Okay. And is that you Miss Maguire that's in charge of of that of the threatened species data collection analysis? Like who who in your department's responsible for
Uh I think it's a combination of different areas. So um my division we coordinate across the department um our engagement with South Australia and in the um in the summer planning uh work and the transfer and and facilitation of the funds being provided to South Australia. We meet with them uh very frequently to understand how the program's rolling out um and uh as I said to participate in science workshops along with uh the science community in South Australia to um make sure we are uh focused on the right things in the immediate term and also undertaking uh considered planning for future
>> Absolutely. Can I can I just be really almost finished here? Can I just have clarification? Are there any is has there been any ecological impact assessments done at all in relation to native species in in South Australia where the toxic album bloom is and the impact on threatened species? Like has that have any of those
is that the South Australian government uh both the uh fisheries department and the environment department and through SARI have been undertaking uh uh species and habitat um uh research and the national environment science projects. My colleague uh doc uh Mr. Ms. JAGO sorry doctor um can run through what those nest projects are because I think that will give you a sense of um uh impact analysis work that's being undertaken on species and habitat.
>> So in short senator um they are underway at the moment. So under um the NESP the national marine um or the national environmental science program the specific projects there's one on assessing the impacts of the harmful algal bloom events on South Australian benthic habitats and then a trophic ecolog trophic ecology based tool to assess um hab impacts on marine ecosystems and then there's a learning from the field rapid assessment on the composition and ecotoxicology of the hab um in order to both look at existing activities and prepare for the future and then there's uh an additional project on the national assessment of HAB preparedness and future events.
>> Okay. And is any and and they're all underway. There's nothing that's been correct there's no data that's been uploaded or publicly available from any of that.
>> that's all underway at the moment. That's right. Um and we equally through that engagement with the South Australian government um both our um one-to-one sort of more um informal engagement frequently but also through the South Australian Science Panel um where we have a member of our team um that attends that we receive those regular updates. Um, and of course we're accessing probably the same platform you are as well, the I naturalist, where we can get a sense of what people are seeing where they're able to upload and then those um particular photos go through a process of of sort of confirmation of species and um such.
>> Senator, one very quick last point on this hopefully for you, which is with the law reforms happening, we're now going to have the state of environment report every two years. The next report is due at the end of this year. That'll give you a national perspective on the trends on species, including uh those affected by the algo bloom, but that'll then be complemented by much more targeted uh insitu science uh on the on the the local impacts beyond that national assessment.
Um could I have could I just ask on notice um what uh any formal communication between um the federal government and the South Australian government in specifically in relation to uh ecological impact assessments. And the reason I'm asking is because in the South Australian Parliament the government has said nothing is So I'm I'm a bit confused. So, I want to know what's really going on. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Senator Hanson Young. I'm going back to Senator Henderson briefly. >> Uh, thank you very much, Chair. Um, Minister, just want to pick up on the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA submission to our inquiry into the um environmental EPBA bill amendments. And in that submission they stated all projects must have immediate access to more effic efficient assessment pathways. And the premier of WA said he supports this submission. So why did you block the gas industry from streamline pathways and overlook the support of that submission and of that position
my earlier answers. I don't think we want to get back into all that discussion about why we passed the bill with the support of the Greens and not the coalition, do we? >> Um, I've I've answered I've said at least three times
>> Australian businesses and industry and and particularly in the West, Minister, when of course mining and gas are so fundamental uh to the the economy in West Australia. Uh, could you address that specific issue raised in the
>> I've I've answered at least three times that the reforms that we passed that you voted against will streamline and speed up assessments and approvals for all industries. I had a very positive meeting again last week with the Chamber of Mines and Energy in WA. They said that they were looking forward to working with us on the implementation of these reforms as have as have a number of environmental organizations.
barriers to new supply, undermines investor confidence, and risks [clears throat] higher energy costs for households and businesses. Minister, why didn't you consider the impact on energy costs when making your decision? Well, I
did and that's why we passed reforms that will speed up approvals for all industries. Reforms that you voted against you don't have was excluded from the no credibility to talk about reforms speeding up approvals. You voted against every single part of that bill that is about speeding up approvals and now you want to come in and say that you care about approvals. You voted against it,
businesses and Australian households.
>> You voted against the bill because you couldn't work out what your position was. I know that cuz I was in the meetings.
>> You are continuing to decline. You question.
>> I've I I think I'm up to four times or five times.
>> The Australian energy producers has warned about the dire consequences of your deal with the greens. And all you can do is make smart political comments.
>> I mean, I can I can I can if you want me to I can get government senators to read out statements from the business groups supporting the reforms as I can get uh statements from environment groups supporting the reforms. You voted against all of them. You voted against the improvements to bilateral agreements. You voted against improvements to regional planning. You voted against improvements to strategic assessments. You voted against national environmental standards. You voted against net gain for offsets. You voted against all of it. You've got no credibility.
>> Um Minister, um thank you for your commentary. I would just ask my next question. Farmers through the National Farmers Federation have said that your reforms have left them bitterly disappointed. Why didn't you take the views of the agriculture sector into account when you
made your deal? I did and that's why I continued to meet with the coalition, the numerous representatives from the coalition who were negotiating for the coalition, coalition version two. Uh, >> I still don't know what the coalition's position was on the EPBC reforms.
>> Minister, you need to take responsibility. It was your dirty deal with the Greens that has betrayed the farmers, has betrayed the gas industry,
has betrayed what stakeholders say about the coalition. >> Okay. Do you know what these stakeholders say about the coalition? And that was that was in the good old days when the coalition was still together.
>> Make your smart a comment.
>> You are a joke.
>> But but
>> you are a joke. You have no Okay, this is no hold on what your policies are.
You're falling. Senators, Senators, this >> Well, there's a I think there's off offense offenses against the standing order both in the question and in the answer. So, um yes, you did you put it
>> and that was unparliamentary and I would ask the minister to that question.
>> No, hold on. Smart A is also
unparliamentary. So,
>> what I was thinking I think we're all grateful for that. Okay, everyone come to order. This is ground that we have now traversed I think three to four times. If there are specific questions, Senator Henderson, otherwise I'm very keen to move on to the next outcome because we have a packed schedule. Um, if there are further questions you wish to put um on this either very quickly or on notice, please we're now running we're still running a long way behind. But but I will just finish on this. >> We need to all do this in a manner that is respectful and civil. So please go on.
>> So minister regarding the forestry amendments to the EPBC act that will see current jobs in Tasmania and New South Wales disappear. >> No it won't
excuse me. That is a lie.
>> That not I beg you withdraw that minister.
>> Sorry you can you can launch personal I
am not
>> you can launch person.
>> You cannot accuse me of being a liar. The CEO of the Australian Forestry Products Association said the government has ignored the evidence showing Australia's native forest industry is sustainable and already delivering strong environmental outcomes. The CEO also said the federal court confirmed last year that RFAS are an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC act can be achieved. Why did you ignore the evidence of experts and the courts?
>> Senator Henderson, all of the stakeholders that you've named and more came to meet with me during the negotiations and prior to the negotiations. I I listened to [clears throat] all of them. I explained to them what we were prepared to move on and what we were not prepared to move on. I encouraged all of them to lobby the coalition as it then stood on these points. They all universally said that they were trying, but they couldn't get a position out of the coalition. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
>> Well, Minister, I'm going to
>> We were We were prepared to pass characterization support of the coalition as late as the day before the agreement was reached, but you couldn't work out.
>> You're not reflecting on the decisions that you made. Um, Minister, you've you've been able to recall your discussions with stakeholders >> during these negotiations. >> Are you able to recall whether you consulted with the Minister for Energy or the Minister for Resources pursuant
to checking that? I've told you that I'm
>> Could you maybe bring that back to the table because it just seems curious.
>> I've taken it on on notice.
>> Well, I'm asking if you could bring it back to the table as soon as possible. curious to me, Minister, that you can remember all of these stakeholder discussions in a lot of detail, but you don't actually remember whether you spoke to your own ministers, the Minister for Energy and the Minister for
>> I've taken on notice and I've explained why I've taken it on notice.
>> Have you been able to ascertain or could you ascertain whether what discussions your office has had?
>> I've taken it on notice.
>> Right. Just in relation to those any potential discussions between either yourself or the office or your office, could we please have on notice all correspondence in relation to that particular deal made with the Greens with both the energy minister's office and also the minister of resources office including any messages, WhatsApp chats, uh emails, letters and the like so we can have a proper understanding of that consultation. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. On that note, no, thank you, Senator Henderson. Um, on that note, we'll now move off outcome 2.1. in order to avoid depressing the room, I won't say precisely how much.
>> Yeah. Are we going?
>> Yes. Um, how far behind we are. Um, but I will note that I will move to shorter blocks for questioning in an attempt to move things along. In the next outcome, we now go to outcome 2.2, two, which relates to protect Australia's cultural, historic, and First Nations heritage. And if those officials would please come >> Welcome to the new officials. Thank you for joining us. Um, Senator Hanson Young, I was coming to you first.
Thank you. Um I've got some questions around uh the great Australian bite. Yep. Um I'm wondering where uh if there's any work that's being done on uh nomination for world heritage listing.
>> Michelle Jimal, head of uh heritage. Uh we have had some preliminary discussions with our colleagues in South Australia and Western Australia uh on what would be required um to progress any potential nomination.
>> When was the last time there was communication between the federal government and South Australia about World Heritage for the bite? Uh, I'd
have to take the exact dates on notice, but I had conversations with my colleagues as uh in the weeks preceding um the shutdown. >> So, end of end of 2025.
>> Great. I mean, yes, happy for you to take the precise dates on notice, but that's what I was trying to understand is the the >> the um was it 12 months ago or or two months ago? So, it sounds like it was more like two or three months ago. >> It's recent. Yeah. Okay. Um and uh has the government got a and this might be a question for the minister but is there a spe does the federal government have a position on whether the great Australian bite should be nominated for world heritage?
>> I don't know that we've reached a position on that. >> I I'm certainly aware [clears throat] of a number of groups who would like us to do so. Um, there are many groups who would like us to board heritage list many properties, but I'm not sure that we've taken a position on that.
>> The South Australian premier has written to the federal government at least once, if not um, more than that seeking Commonwealth support.
>> There are a number of properties and sites in South Australia that the South Australian government is keen to have World Heritage listed. Um, I think I'm right in saying we can only put forward one per year. And of course there are other states who would also like their sites listed as well.
it has significant community support in South Australia for world heritage for the great Australian bite. I mean it's it's been a long-term campaign of um many of us in South Australia including the traditional owners. Has there been any discussion with uh traditional owners from the
through the process for a nomination uh for world heritage is quite is quite a lengthy pro is quite a lengthy process um being world heritage and [clears throat] so it can take between five to seven years um for us to go through the process and the world heritage committee have actually put forward a new aspect of the um of the process which is a preliminary assessment um phase as well. So we're in um just very early discussions around what might be possible. Generally when a world heritage nomination um is is put on the table, it's normally the state or territory uh that will start the discussions um and engage with us um on on on a potential way forward. Um but we we're at the moment just having very
when would be you there's obviously a nomination process each year. Um when is the next round um of nominations due?
>> So we have a long list of properties that are on the tentative list. Um and so we work through quite methodically um around um around that list. uh we have not started work um u uh we're having initial preliminary discussions on this one. So our priority is to work through uh the commitments made um uh by the government on existing um assessments and um Senator as you outlined that does include a full kind of um uh process uh working with traditional owners. So uh uh we're working through the existing work program.
>> Mhm. Has there been any um funding earmarked for world heritage for the great Australian bite by the government? No. Has there been any preliminary work done as to how much a world heritage nomination for the bite would
>> No. Um Senator, as I was saying, we're having initial discussions with our counterparts in uh South Australia and and and Western Australia. um and uh to consider what might be possible um in the future. Our priority at the moment um as a team is to move forward with those um uh um assessments uh that are already on our work program.
>> And just just to add to that, Senator, the other um factor there obviously there's a WA government as well which would have an interest and so it has to be on the uh agreement of both state governments.
>> Well, it doesn't actually. Oh, that was going to be my next question. I'm worried that things are being dragged out because WA's are being sticklers.
scale of the listing, but um generally the management of the property itself would go to a state government. So it would again go to the scale and scope of a potential property and as well during an assessment process it would depend on the kind of values that um uh the states and the commonwealth were interested in pursuing and then obviously achieving FPIC um is a big part of that as well. So there's there's a lot to go through.
is the WA government
We are having constructive conversations with um our counterparts in South Australia in WA to start the um discussion around what might be possible. Um as Miss Parry was outlining, uh we need to really first think about uh what uh the outstanding universal might be, whether it's marine, whether it's terrestrial. Um but we it it um as Miss Parry was saying, it's really up to the um states and territories. um as the managers of those those sites uh to come forward and we will um support a process noting that uh we have a very full program at the moment um and that we're and it does take 5 to seven years and it is an extensive process. We're in the early stages, but we are having conversations with both.
sit back and let South Australians not get their World [clears throat] Heritage protection for the bite because the WA government doesn't want to do anything. And surely, I mean, at some point, there needs to be federal leadership on this.
There's at least two South Australian properties that I'm aware of that are um that are either on the tentative list or um whatever the even higher up the list list is than tenative list. So South Australia's views well South Australia's views are well known and we are actively progressing a number of bids from South Australia. Yeah.
>> For example, we've just recently submitted the full dossier for the Flenders Rangers um to the World Heritage Center.
>> Um okay. Well, I'll come back um with some other questions on notice around that. Um but if you could get me the any formal communication between the federal government and the state, SA and WA governments in relation to the bite, that would be good.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hanson Young. Senator Walker,
I've got some questions regarding um indigenous protected areas. >> Is that
>> that's actually not in this outcome. Um
>> that's okay. I can
>> I think that's
>> I can revisit that.
>> Um indigenous potatoes will be under
>> We're in 2.2. So, protect Australia's cultural, historic, and first nations heritage. Which outcome would that be
>> So, it's the indigenous protected areas are actually managed um out of our parks group. So, it's um >> I don't have a just hang on a ticket. I think it could have come under uh outcome two. Um but I'm not sure if um >> I don't think the director of national parks is appearing today.
We'll have to take those questions on notice if if there are particular ones.
>> Okay. We can I think then put them on notice. That shouldn't be a problem. I'm going to go then to Santa Waters. Yes.
>> Thanks very much. Hello everyone. Hello minister. Appreciate your time. A few questions about reef and then cultural heritage. >> Uh so starting off with the state of conservation report for the great barrier reef. The we got the the right folk at the table for that.
>> We do. We're just um going to bring it's a crossover senator between our oceans and reef division and our world heritage divisions. So if it's the content of the report, we'll go to our ocean um colleagues colleagues.
>> Great. Thank you. So the 2026 state of conservation report on the Great Barrier Reef says, quote, both the Australian and Queensland governments are prosecuting an evolving energy transition with renewable energy at its core. End quote. The report doesn't mention that the Queensland government has repealed its renewable energy targets. It doesn't mention that the Queensland government has [clears throat] discontinued a large number of renewable energy projects. Doesn't mention that the Queensland government has withdrawn Clean Co's equity stakes in projects like the Mower Creek wind farm. And it doesn't mention that the Queensland energy road map has explicitly extended the life of coal fire power stations to at least 2046. Does leaving this information out paint a misleading picture of action to address climate risks to the Great Thank you, Senator. John Foster, branch head, Great Barrier Reef Branch. Uh, so
conservation report is prepared. Uh, so it's prepared jointly between the two
the material that you see in the report from Queensland has been approved by the Queensland government. uh out of respect for the material that we've provided, we don't generally change that that
content. Um in terms of the the sort of climate change targets, those targets that are determined by uh the Australian government, uh which climate colleagues will be here later today, uh they remain unchanged. And so those overarching
targets around emissions uh remain the same. They're not necessarily something that uh in terms of a national perspective that the Queensland government has any input into in terms of this particular report. >> So are you saying that the phrase both the Australian and Queensland governments are prosecuting an evolving energy transition with renewable energy at its core? You're saying that wasn't ticked off by anyone at your federal level. you just accepted that Queensland was prepared to assert that and there's no kind of >> uh sorry >> sense check, fact check, reality check on assertions that deny a whole lot of other facts that point to the contrary. the Queensland and and the Commonwealth government I think in terms of uh the content around the sort of energy and climate um change content of that report uh colleagues that will appear later probably better placed to talk about the sort of message that goes with that
>> um in terms of uh you know how up to date that is in terms of Queensland's policies versus the Commonwealth.
>> Okay. Okay. So, who would have ticked off on that sentence being included?
>> I approved the report being submitted. So, I'm happy to take responsibility for the report.
>> Yeah. So, Minister, do you think that the Queensland government is prosecuting an evolving energy transition with renewable energy at its core?
>> You I think you are at a conference where I said quite a lot about the Queensland government and its approach to energy policy. So it's well understood that um we the Albanesei government has a much more ambitious approach to renewable energy than the Queensland Chrisully government does.
>> So Minister, why then tick off on a statement that is glossing over all of those anti-climate actions taken by the
I think it would be fair to say that the Australian and Queensland governments are prosecuting the energy transition at different levels of urgency. Um, the Albani government being more urgent than the Queensland government.
>> So, why didn't you say that in the
>> Uh, well, I don't think that the statement itself is untrue. I guess what's different is the level of urgency with which the different levels of government are pursuing that transition.
>> Okay. Is it possibly also in your interest to pretend to the World Heritage Committee that everything's fine, the state of the reef's okay?
>> No, I I think if you if you have a look at the report, um you'll see that we acknowledge that there's more to be done to protect the reef.
>> Okay. But you're not prepared to acknowledge on the record in the actual state of conservation report that the Queensland government has repealed its renewable energy targets, extended the life of coal fire power stations, and pulled public funding from renewable.
>> I'm I'm aware. Sorry, Miss Barry. Uh, I
was just going to say as the state party um, senator, we are responsible for reporting against the Australian state party climate change commitments and we report against the Commonwealth commitments around climate change. So that's what um, that's what we report against as a state party around our UNFC obligations and those obligations would take account of what's happening across
jurisdictions. M it just seems a bit um a bit odd [clears throat] to include well arguably falsehoods in the report to the World Heritage Committee.
>> I don't think they're falsehoods and as Ms. Parry said, our obligation as the State Party is to report on Australian government uh commitments, policies. Um, of course, and I've made this point before that, um, uh, if any state um, slows down its transition towards renewables, that puts extra pressure on the remainder of the country to deliver the the commitments that we have made. So, we've we've obviously increased our emissions reduction targets. Um, we've got our renewable energy target. If any individual state government walks away or slows down their own transition, then that will put extra pressure on the remainder of the country to meet those targets. But we remain committed to
>> Will you assure
wanted to note the Queensland government has a followup on page 21 of the report that talks about their commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
>> Thank you. U Minister, will you issue a supplementary uh state of the reef report or some kind of appendix or letter advising of those policy changes to correct the assertion?
>> I stand by everything that we've got got in that report.
>> Right. Okay. Well, that's going to make for some very interesting um
>> Well, if the if the Greens Party wishes to campaign to have the Great Barrier Leaf Reef listed as in danger and destroy the 77,000 tourism jobs relying on the Great Barrier Reef, then that's up to you.
>> I think it's climate change that's destroying those jobs and the reef minister, not the Greens, telling the truth about something >> is actually trying to help. That will be
up to you to decide, but we are presenting the facts to UNESCO uh including um the
>> except where they're inconvenience,
>> including the ambitious targets that the Albanesei government has set for renewable energy emissions reduction and all of the other uh spending commitments that we've made on reef.
>> Yes, those targets that you're not on track for either. Okay, let's come to water quality. The reef water quality improvement plan expired in 2022. The World Heritage Committee called on Australia to update the plan by 2025 and include ambitious new water quality targets. There are none. There's only a draft [clears throat] plan that was released in 2025 which has been strongly criticized by environment groups, by industry, by farmers and by First Nations groups. Can I have an update please on what is happening with the water quality plan? Uh so
as you indicated, Senator, a draft plan was released in October. Uh and that that plan was heavily criticized. Uh we're working um closely with Queensland to update that strategy and that includes finalizing the review of the water quality targets. So that a new plan uh will consider uh the out outcomes of that water quality target review um as that new plan is finalized.
>> Okay. Um, can you say that in plan language, please? When is the plan going to be finalized?
>> Uh, at at this stage, Senator, we understand that it'll be completed uh towards the end of April, early May. It's important to to point out that as Queensland's responsible for land and water management in Queensland, that the strategy is essentially a Queensland strategy. So, they are leading development of the strategy. uh we're working quite closely with them to finalize it and to ensure that it meets the requirements um of UNESCO that being that it protects the outstanding universal value of the world heritage
>> Are you concerned that that slow lack of progress and potentially weak targets if history is anything to go by could impact the upcoming World Heritage Endanger listing?
I think the important point, Senator, is that the strategy is done right and that we get the strategy right uh and that there is a thorough review of of targets and that the science that sits behind the targets uh is the best available science, the modeling that sits behind it um is is is I'm not sure of the right words, but there are no glitches in that modeling uh to ensure that the targets that we get will deliver what we need to deliver for the reef. so that those targets continue to be ecologically relevant that they deliver the sort of quality for the reef that will protect its outstanding universal value. Senator, if
I can add, I think it's a positive sign that Queensland has asked for a bit more time to finalize this report. They did get the feedback on their draft report. They took it seriously and and are taking that time. Uh but as uh uh was just mentioned, it's going to be really important that they use really accurate modeling. we had some issues with the the model that was being developed that it was spitting out effectively inaccurate information and so getting that model right so that we can have a robust report go to the uh UNESCO is is paramount. The other thing I just wanted to tie back to Miss Parry's point about that supplemental input uh from Queensland again just to emphasize that commitment to net zero is a statement of Queensland government policy that went through uh their their approval making decision including presumably cabinet etc. So um that is something they are willing to stand behind and that's why that's in that document.
>> Okay. Can we come back to those glitches in the water quality modeling because not only were the targets weak and we weren't on track to meet them, but you're now saying that the modeling behind them was plagued with inaccuracies. Um where did the source of that problem come from and who's in charge of fixing that and how much did get spent on that
uh in terms of the modeling issue, so the models that are used for the development of the targets also inform the water quality report cards and through through reviews of both the water quality report card process and the water quality targets review. uh when the final outputs from uh the review came out um there were a number of anom anomalies and so as a result of that uh both the modelers in Queensland so the Queensland government models the Queensland government modelers and the consultants uh reviewed the models uh and found that there were some problems with some of the inputs to those models and as a result uh we're now going back working closely with Queensland um Queensland have since updated the models. Those updated models will then be rerun through the water quality target review.
>> Is that the cause of the delay or are there other reasons as well?
>> So in terms of the delay of the water quality target review, that's the the source of the delay. Uh in terms of the water quality strategy, um the sort of delay in timing is so that uh we can respond to the criticism and ensure that we get the strategy right.
>> Okay. Um, so when will the 2026 report card be published?
>> Uh, so the process for the next water quality report card is being finalized by Queensland at the moment and so I don't have a I suppose a date for the next report card. Uh, we'd need to take that on notice.
>> When like when is it due if they were on track?
>> Uh, so the timing of the water quality report cards varies. It's not always on the same schedule. Um, and it's a matter for Queensland in terms of the timing of those water quality reports.
>> Is it going to be before the next draft decision of UNESCO? I
>> I wouldn't be able to say, Senator, I'd need to take that on.
>> Is that being deliberately delayed so that it's not before the next draft UNESCO decision? >> the Queensland, you're confident the Queensland government isn't delaying it for that reason either.
>> I think the Queensland government is working through the feedback that they've received on their report and their scientific understanding and working through the report card.
>> Okay. But you're not sure whether it will be produced before the next draft UNESCO decision or not.
>> It's a matter for Queensland government.
>> It's a matter for Queensland government. Senator,
>> is there anything you can do to hurry them along so that they can get information in a timely manner to influence that decision? So we're
working with Queensland on >> well we're working with Queensland on a range of issues to ensure that uh we have not only the water quality strategy the target review completed before the world heritage committee meeting in mid 2026 uh but also some of the also some of these issues around water quality report cards and the like. Again, it's important that we get these things right and that the modeling that underpins them is right so that we're not sort of reporting on uh data and other things that are incorrect and lead us down the wrong pathway both in terms of how we're tracking against the targets but also in terms of government investment.
>> How many FTEEs have you got working on fixing up this mess?
uh in my team, Senator. Uh at this point in time, approximately two FTEEs, but I'd have to take that on on notice. Um this is primarily the Queensland government is the lead on this and so they will have uh a number of people working on it as well as a consultant that's been engaged to support the work.
Um, I've got some questions on cultural heritage, but chair, shall I go to those quickly now or