Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:44:19 to 3:25:22
Final questioning focuses on the environmental impact of fish farming in Macquarie Harbour and the protection of sacred First Nations birthing trees.
Topics: Fisheries, First Nations, EPBC Act
Speakers: Hon Murray Watt, Vanessa Bleyer, John Bradley, Senator Lidia Thorpe, Senator Barbara Pocock, Carmen Dwyer, Greg Manning, Interjection, Mr. Tony Chappel, Rachel Short, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Speaker 23, Speaker 32, Speaker 33
>> Thank you, chair. My questions are about the endangered Moian skate if there needs to be a change of personnel at the table um which only subsists at McQuary Harbor on the west coast of Tasmania. As you'd be aware, Minister, the Tasmanian EPA grants lic licenses to the fish farming corporations that conduct the fish farming at McQuary Harbor. And it's currently a condition of the licenses that those fish farming companies reduce the oxygen that the fish farms use because the depletion of oxygen in the water is suffocating the endangered moian skate and causing its imminent extinction. And it makes sense I'd have to do that right because we have a polluter pays principle um in this country. They're the poller and so they should pay for such a program to seek to avoid the extinction of the Mojian skate. And these fish farming corporations make hundreds of millions of dollars profit a year. So why is the Commonwealth government paying for the oxygen mitigation programs for these big fish farming corporations at Mcquaryy Harour?
>> Well, that decision was taken some time ago. um I would need to go back and look at what statements were made at the time that was even before I came into this role that that decision was taken. Um so I' I'd need to look back at what the policy rationale given at the time was. But you know more generally you would be aware that um our government has said that we uh do um want to see the long-term survival of this species. Um, equally we support the jobs in the salmon industry in Tasmania and that's why we were prepared to make a financial contribution towards this.
>> Well, Minister, some time ago was 2025. Is that some time ago to you?
>> No, no, I think it was Well, I think it was earlier than that, but it might have
$10 million of taxpayers money when these big fish farming corporations have turned to foreign organizations that pay no income tax in this country making 100 millions of dollars that they take offshore and the taxpayer is still covering them to undertake oxygen mitigation measures to try to stop the skates extinction. Is that what the taxpayers have to accept? My
recollection is that uh some of the companies involved are also making financial contributions towards activities to pre preserve the skate. Um but I'd need to look back at that. Uh it's not something I've looked at for a while because again these decisions were
taken a while ago. Well, I put it to you, Minister, that we've got $10 million of Commonwealth money and $.7.75 million of money from these foreign fish farming corporations. So, the taxpayers should accept that that's the the way that the government expects foreign corporations could to conduct
>> My recollection is that the government made those commitments. Uh you say it was early 2025. um that would have been before the last federal election. We were very open about our position there and you you would have known the results in the Tasmanian election where um Tasmanians uh supported more Labor members in the parliament, not fewer. So the Tasmanian people have had their say on that. I realize that's not your view, but the Tasmanian people have had
their say. Uh Minister, you'd be aware that uh your department has found that fish farming at McQuary Harbor has had and is likely to continue to have a significant impact on the endangered Mojian Skate and the World Heritage values of the Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Area that adjoins McQuary Harbor. Um you're aware that your department made those findings. I would
want to go back and look at exactly what the department found rather than accept your version of that.
>> Well, I've got the department document here, Minister, and it says that the department considers that based on the information currently before you, it is open to you to find that the action has had and is likely to continue to have a significant impact on the Mojian skate and the world heritage values. This is a departmental advice which was produced under freedom of information. So, do you now accept or I have a copy for you that that's what your department found?
>> Well, a I'd like to see that for myself and b um I've tried to assist you as much as I can on this, Senator BL, but you would be aware there are legal proceedings underway um that I think you might have worked on um in a formal life. Um, so I'm not going to answer that question on the basis that there's legal proceedings looking at these issues.
>> Well, I'd like to hand you a copy of the advice and then you can have a look for it at it yourself, Minister.
>> Oh, but I've I've said that I'm not going to answer the question because it goes to matters that are currently the subject of legal proceedings.
>> Well, this is not a matter that's the subject of legal proceedings, Minister. This is a departmental document that was given to you >> which gave you advice. we'd normally
table it and >> well I'll just in the interest of time I'll take the question on notice uh but I expect that I won't be answering it because the issues that you're discussing are directly relevant to legal proceedings that are underway now.
>> So if we were to assume that that is the departmental advice that you were given, you would report it to the World Heritage Commission, wouldn't you?
>> I'm not going to answer questions that are related uh to the issues subject to
you, Minister, that you're avoiding answering the question without a reasonable basis. This is not relevant
to our legal. I'm asking you a question,
Minister. If you were given advice that something was having a significant impact on a World Heritage area, you'd tell the World Heritage Commission, wouldn't you?
>> That's that's a hypothetical question, which the standing order,
>> wouldn't you? Hypothetically, you would.
>> No, we don't answer hypothetical
you'd accept, wouldn't you, that you are required to advise the World Heritage Commission [snorts] if there is such a significant impact.
>> Uh, I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, but some of the officials might.
>> Minister. We could provide some sure >> information in the interim. Um, but might just ask Rachel to speak to the um situation in relation to that earlier
>> Thank you. Rachel Short, branch head, um, National Environmental Protection Agency. Uh, Senator, the document that you're describing, um, was a document that was provided to the previous minister. Uh, it was departmental advice that was provided at the time based on information available at that time. Um, that advice that was provided to the minister, a decision was never made in relation to that. and the um there was some further scientific information that was released uh that the then minister asked us to asked the department to consider its relevance to the advice that um you're describing there.
>> Yes. So the advice is from January 2025. And so you accept that that advice was given to the minister that the fish farming being conducted at McQuary Harbor was having a a significant impact and was likely to continue to on the endangered Mojian skate and on the World Heritage values. So thank you for accepting that. And then you're also aware, aren't you, of our obligation to advise the World Heritage Commission when there is such a significant impact?
>> That that might be more a question for the officials who deal with World Heritage Convention.
>> Thank you. And you've heard that question twice now, so please answer it.
Thanks, Senator Katrina Maguire, head of the International Environment um marine and heritage division. Um, I can say that um, uh, the department received a third-party letter um, from UNESCO uh, raising a number of concerns about salmon farming in McQuary Harbor and that um, a detailed response addressing those concerns was provided to UNESCO on 3 July 2025. Uh, and that has uh, response was released under the freedom of information request on 13 October 2025. That request was made by the Australia Institute.
>> Okay. I call for production of those two documents on notice. So the the third party letter and the response to UNESCO. I just will ask a quick question on another matter and then I I will give my colleagues an opportunity in the short time that we have available and hope to return to me if we have time. Please chair. Um these >> we have we will try to. Yes. >> These next questions are about uh Robins Island. if there needs to be a change of personnel at the table. Now, Minister, you'll recall that in August 2025, you approved the development of a wind farm at Politica Robbins Island.
>> I did. And um I am also aware there's legal proceedings underway and I think it was actually the Robbins Island legal proceedings that I think you were involved in rather than Mcquary Harour. Maybe you were involved.
>> I was involved in both of them, Minister. >> That's why I'm very clear on what is relevant to those cases and what isn't. So, I wouldn't ask you anything that was relevant to those cases.
>> That's your view. Um, but I'm going to be very cautious in answering questions about Robins Island given there are legal proceedings underway as well.
>> Well, um, the that case awaits judgment, but this is a question that is not relevant to those legal proceedings. You you'll recall that when you approved this bad idea at the wrong place that you attached a number of conditions to the approval decision. Um, one of those conditions required the proponent asen Robbins Island Proprietary Limited to provide an orangebellied parrot sight specific survey methodology. Now, the proponent failed to do so. You're aware of that. I've put you on notice of that in the Senate. And so, I'm just wondering what action you have taken because you would be aware that under the EPBC act, you can impose penalties, you can take civil enforcement action, uh, you can invalidate the approval decision. What action have you undertaken, Minister given this grave breach of a condition when we are looking at the extinction of the critically endangered orange bellied parrot?
>> Uh, M. Short is in a position to update you on that.
>> Thank you, Mich. Thank you, Senator. Uh, the conditions required the orange balied parrots specific survey um methodology to be provided um within 6 months of the date of the approval. it needed to be endorsed by the Tasmanian Department of NA um natural resources and environment. Um it was endorsed by the Tasmanian Agency and provided to the department on the 27th of February 2026. We haven't yet approved that methodology u but we're still working with the proponent as to finalize that methodology.
Well, I call on the methodology that was submitted to you on the 27th of February, 2026 um to be produced on notice. I shall give somebody else an opportunity to ask a question.
>> Thank you. I'm going to go to Senator Roberts and then I'll come to you. Senator Roberts,
>> Sorry, what was the source for that?
delayed approvals and facilitating a
>> Um, well, it it would be the case that there would be some uh resources projects that take um a long time to assess. And it would also be the case that there would be some that take not very long at all. And that all depends on the level of environmental impact um the uh proponent participation in the process um as well as the EPA's management of those processes. But um perhaps Mr. Bradley or his officials can talk to you about the management of those sorts of referrals.
>> Yeah, thanks Minister. And uh certainly it is a priority to make sure that we move projects through the system as much as possible and we do look at not only the average but also the aged um cases and what I can say is that what we find is that in the last four years uh we've managed to see 60% of all projects manage their impacts to levels below significant. This is in terms of all projects um uh collectively. In the case of um uh fossil fuel projects um we have uh been monitoring some of those that are older in terms of um age cases. We've got seven projects that are still listed on the system that are over 10 years old. In each case in each of those seven cases that um the matter is in the hands of the proponent to come back with further information. So sometimes we will find that the circumstances of the proponent uh and the additional information that's required uh will lead to a project aging while it's on our books. Um but we do actively manage it and uh as we were saying earlier we're finding that um since the commencement of the national EPA uh we've seen um 63 projects approved of which um are green lit and of those we've seen 93% of those within the statutory time frame.
applications? Something like say uh any application dormant for more than 6 months causes a review or is it if it's
>> Uh we we certainly work through our um state and territory branches. We work closely with proponents in an ongoing way. And to be frank with you, we're we case manage to make sure that we know um where each project is at and whether the ball is in our court or in the court of the um proponent. Uh and we're certainly aware of the age of um projects in terms of how long they've been in the system. But maybe Miss Calhoun might want to add to how we actively manage those older
>> Um thank you Kylie Calhoun, acting division head of the National EPA. um we we are constantly reviewing what the projects are that we have on the book and when we last had contact with those proponents and ensuring that they understand if the project is with them what the requirements are that they are
to meet to help move the project along. So we I mean I can't add much more than
with industry groups trying to grow our
>> Well, we passed um the biggest reforms to the environmental laws in 25 years last year, and you didn't vote for them. >> So, you could have voted
>> streamline the presence. Yes. >> Really? >> Premier Mins recently passed the New South Wales Planning System Reforms Act 2025 to introduce a single front door for development applications in New South Wales. In respect of environmental approvals, it recomd the strict legislative requirements to seek specialized advice from standalone entities like the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, Water, Federal Department. For example, D DC dcc is no longer strictly required to be consulted regarding a development's impact on threatened species. Are slow approvals by your department, minister, causing even your own Labor Party colleagues and premers to give up on your government?
>> The Well, we we have the support of every state and territory, labor and coalition. No one nation states and territories for now at least. Um but we have the support of
>> trying to make one nation. >> but you're dividing.
>> Are you okay? Um we have the support of every state and territory government for the reforms that we're undertaking and as I was saying to Senator Bragg, we're in active negotiations with every state and territory around agreements to speed up decision making.
>> Wait for the ice age coming soon.
>> Senator, it's also >> Senator. probably also relevant that the state >> our state equivalent department in New South Wales is also called DQ. So the reference to DQ in the material that you're reading is most likely to be that state government department.
>> Multi multi-year delays in processing environmental approvals being used as a disincentive to invest in mining and resources especially in in hydrocarbon fuels. Is the reason for these in other words long delays a capability issue or is it ideological?
>> Uh for your first answer no. Um second question neither.
>> Thank you chair.
>> Thank you Senator Robin. Senator Pok. chance to get these questions in. They go to the Adelaide parklands um and the cumulative impact of a range of uh measures there. Minister, what state planning authorities are systematically exploiting internal self assessments to treat major interconnected infrastructure developments in our heritage parklands as entirely isolated events by splitting projects like the Walker Tower, the international commercial golf course which is in North Adelaide public golf course, the 20 m commercial driving range safety fence in park 27A and the motor GP circuit into separate pieces. They deliberately avoid mandatory cumulative impact referrals under the EPBC act. The cumulative impact of these is really causing enormous concern in in Adelaide and South Australia, but it represents death by a thousand cuts for the Adelaide Parklands. When those individual components are allowed to bypass independent federal audits via fast-tracked internal processes, the overarching spatial integrity of the entire national heritage site is permanently compromised. Why haven't these successive cumulative encroachments on a national heritage site triggered a significant impact under section 15B of the EPBC act?
>> Um, initially it's probably best if I get the EPA to answer questions about how these applications are being dealt with and they can they can answer the direct question as well.
>> Thanks. Um, Minister, I might just uh note that most recently on the 18th of September, the National EPA received a valid referral from the South Australian Department for Infrastructure and Transport for the proposed Adelaide Circuit Redevelopment Project. And um indeed today uh the delegate has um made
>> just to sorry Mr. Bley, I don't like to interrupt you, but my question was about the cumulative impact. I've got further questions about Moto GP, but I'm asking about the cumulative impact of these measures.
>> And and I I think the point I was trying to make is that in the case that the delegates made the decision today, the delegate has determined that significant impacts were unlikely to occur, including to those national heritage values um of the Adelaide Parklands and the city layout um and and other matters like the greyheaded flying fox. We're certainly aware of a number of development proposals within the parklands and the community concern about cumulative impacts of the proposals and we'll continue to work with the South Australian government to make sure that there is appropriate consideration of matters of national environmental significance in the parklands including appropriate um impact avoidance and mitigation measures. Uh but we need to um look at the uh individual matters before us including um where we have a referral. The proponent is obliged to refer to us where there is likely be a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. They're also able to undertake a self assessment uh and to be um able to consider or conclude on that self assessment that there is unlikely be a significant impact and in those cases um we'll assess the material before us. Did you
say a decision has been made today?
>> A decision has been made [clears throat] today um that um the in relation to the um Moto GP uh that the matter will be uh non-controlled action um if undertaken in a particular manner and there are some uh requirements there in relation to a particular manner in which it needs to be undertaken.
>> Can you spell those out?
>> Yes, thank you. Um so it was found that it was unlikely to have a significant impact on the gray box threatening ecological community if um there are a number of uh particular manner uh requirements undertaken and they include limiting the clearance of gray box um to 1.1 hectares. The transllocation of um the gray box um threaten ecological community from within the disturbance area to an adjacent area. the installation of temporary fencing during construction works and the installation of permanent fencing after completion of construction around the gray box threatened ecological community.
Um has the proponent established what might be the impacts on the highly vulnerable gayheaded flying fox during the race given that the race will be during the breeding season of this creature. the noise will be extreme at 130 dB and therefore well outside the normal range and that the northern extent of the race will be quite close to that colony.
>> Yes. So, uh the uh practice will be that um the delegate will release a statement of reasons um on request which would set out all of that material um in relation to uh its the delegate's reasoning. But in short, the delegate did conclude that um significant impacts were unlikely to the gay-headed flying fox. It was not one of the matters that required particular measures.
>> All of that um decision in full detail is on now public.
>> It's no sorry as of today the decision is public on the portal and then a statement of reasons is then released um
>> And how how soon?
>> Uh I might ask Miss Cahoon to comment.
There has been no request for a statement of reasons at this point, but we do understand the interest in this project. So, we are working on a statement of reasons at
>> extreme interest in Adelaide. People care passionately about this issue. There are thousands of citizens out every weekend uh in on this question. There is extreme hostility uh to what is proposed to do here and the and the potential impact. You still haven't dealt, I believe, with the cumulative impact of a range of measures that are significantly transforming the historical nature of of these parklands. How are you going to deal with the cumulative nature of these uh really significant intrusions on the parklands,
>> Well, I don't interfere in the way the EPA approaches it decision- making. They may care to explain to you how they take those matters into account.
>> I I mean I think it's best to wait till we have the statement of reasons for this particular consideration, but they are project by project in terms of how they're being referred.
>> So they are not cumulative in their assessment. They you are looking at a particular development in relation to Moto GP are you not >> It's a real failure that you don't look at the cumulative impact. Minister, what the city of Adelaide, the council has officially submitted a 12page statutory deficiency brief to your office regarding the Moto GP at the track development, explicitly calling out the state government for total lack of consultation with local community groups. Given the City of Adelaide Council has formally blown the whistle on this total exclusion of the public, will you continue to claim that the National Heritage values regarding visual legibility are merely advisory or will you listen to the community and exercise your statutory call-in powers under section 70 of the EPBC act to halt the works?
>> Which project are you talking about
>> I'm talking about the U Moto GP track
development. Well, um the city of Adelaide is entitled to their views about community consultation. Um what the EPA takes into account is whether um a referred project is likely to have a significant impact on uh nationally protected matters and you've heard from the EPA as to what decision they reached
on that. And Minister, if I could just add to that, um, we do as part of the referral assessment undertake public consultation and between the 18th of September and the 2nd of October, we received over 300 comments on the referral as part of that mandatory public consultation period and considered each of those comments as part of the delegates decision I referred to earlier.
Can you confirm whether this project was assessed against the impact on the national heritage value of the Adelaide Parklands? looking at the impact of a permanent new infrastructure project on this masterwork of urban design or from a purely environmental standpoint.
>> I can confirm that uh the delegate did consider um national heritage values of the Adelaide Parklands and city layout as part of the um uh protected matters to be considered and concluded that it was unlikely to have a significant
The referral explicitly excludes the annual Moto GP event from the EPBC assessment despite being the reason for the track redevelopment. Such an event will bring with it further environmental impacts which include the impacts of hosting a three-day race event over a whole weekend installation and removal of very significant works and temporary facilities which include curbing, gravel traps and internal access tracks. Will the South Australian Motorsport Board be required to submit another referral so that the EPA can assess the environmental impacts of such works and the event itself?
>> Uh so just to be explicit, the uh referral that was assessed by the delegate did consider both the environmental matters I referred to earlier, particularly that gray box threat ecological community, the gay-headed flying fox. um they were the um significant environmental um considerations in that process but also considered the national heritage values of the Adelaide Parklands and city layout layout. So it has considered those heritage matters.
>> You haven't considered have you? I'm asking um the actual impact of the 3-day >> Did you?
>> I don't believe so. I believe it was I I'd have to go back to the I'll have to
work not the actual race. the works is
my understanding but I'd need to look at the referral documents.
>> So my question is will you assess the work the event itself?
>> Yeah. So it does actually exclude the event.
>> So will you I'm my question is
>> yes. So we are actively working with the South Australian government to determine you know both the cumulative impacts on the Adelaide parklands and what actions do need to be referred and um if they determine that they believe a matter should um be referred to us it it will be but we're having discussions they they understand what the requirements are. this has been referred and they will determine um if the next stage um considers um requires consideration by us through a
>> and what opportunity will there be in that consideration for the voice and consultation with South Australian
Well, if it was referred to us, for instance, there would be that public consultation um period, but they the it's on the proponent to determine whether they think it will be um a matter that has an impact of on M&S and and um at that point in time, it would go through our normal process, which has a number of phases for public consultation.
>> I would just want you to know how incredibly disappointed many South Australian citizens will be about today's decision. It is an historic attack on a really important facility, a a magnificent urban design which has really been significantly reshaped by the cumulative impact which your consideration does not allow true uh true assessment of little piece by little piece a magnificent uh park that is transformed over time by all those thousand cuts. I realize I'm out of time so thank you.
Uh, I'm asking about the forestry agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Um, so if those people could come forward, I'll start with you, Minister. You are currently negotiating a draft bilateral approval agreement for forestry with the Tasmanian government. By now we were supposed to have a first nations engagement standard under the national environment reforms. I think this has been about six years been waiting for that. um and you've produced a guide, but given that there's no First Nations engagement standard and it's taking you years to get that together and you're putting all the other standards before the most important one and we were meant to be first, but we're being kicked down will you guarantee that there will be no bilateral agreement that does not put the principle of free, prior, and informed consent of the traditional owners at the forefront of any assessment of proposed forestry actions? Well, just
to correct a couple of things there, Senator. I don't know that anyone made a commitment that a First Nations engagement standard for the EPBC would be the first standard that we would create. Certainly, I've never given that commitment. >> You pred I'm not sure about that, but anyway. And uh as I've explained previously, the reason we haven't yet completed a First Nations engagement standard is because we are also undertaking reform to the cultural heritage laws um which we've discussed and it's the intention as part of those reforms to do a lot of standard related to that piece of legislation and we need to do those two pieces of work together in terms while we haven't so in the period of time that we don't have a first nations engagement standard um if you like. The way that First Nations engagement will be monitored, regulated, whichever word you want to use, uh is through the more general community engagement standard that has been created. I realize that's not the same. Um and I'm trying to remember whether there were specific references to engagement with First Nations people in the community engagement standard. Um, one of the officials might be able to help me with that. Um, the uh, but but community engagement in general will need to follow what's set out in that standard. I accept that's not the same as a First Nations engagement standard.
>> And good luck getting black fellas to that one then given the state of the nation. You know, that's why we do that. So we create a safe space. Yeah. and that we're talking to people um where we're where we know we're safe and we can get a seat at the table. If it's a general discussion or a general consultation, black followers are put down the back every time. So, it won't work and you know that.
>> Well, it it it was always our intention to have a First Nations engagement standard finalized by now. The work on cultural heritage reform has taken longer than we would have liked. Um, and it is important that those two pieces of work happen together. >> Mr. Manning might be able to add something here.
>> Uh, Greg Manning, um, division head for the environment policy legislation and forest division. Just to add to what the minister is indicating there. So the the community engagement standard will apply to the arrangement that we accredit in Tasmania and that's where that will actually kick into that process. I think your question went to the consultations towards the making of that agreement that is um there are statutory and other consultation processes which are set out
that we're working towards um having ready for for that process in the not
too distant future. And I'd have to check I think there might be another one further closer towards the end but don't
just speak closer to the mic? >> I was just going to say in in >> Sorry guys, I can hear that combo. That combo, you know, I'm emerging elder. The ears aren't as good as they used to be. So, if you can speak into the microphone and you follow stop talking, that would
is that whilst at the moment we are very much focused on the negotiations in relation to the the terms of that bilateral agreement with Tasmania, but we will in due course and I don't expect it's too far away turn our minds to what the public consultation process for that will look like. And that's where we will in conjunction with our Tasmanian colleagues look at how we make sure that the whole process stakeholders who have an interest in it. um including First Nations Australians.
>> Thank you. So, who's on the task force to negotiate the bilateral agreement? >> who's on the task force in general, who who's who are the players?
>> So, within the department, we have established a task force in order to work on this RFA transition arrangements and we're working on that with the three relevant states. Um, so that sits within my division. Um, and Miss Pcel here is the head, the branch head responsible for the RFA task force. And we have a team of people who work with us in relation to that. In Tasmania, they have established similar arrangements that involve the relevant players. So the the department down there, I forget the name of the department, but >> building Tasmania, the forest practices etc. So the relevant government agencies and they have a team there who are working with us to negotiate that
>> Thanks. Um so traditional owners have asked for specific first nations community briefings but were rebuked and told they can just be part of the wider consultation. Meanwhile they've been uh there have been dedicated briefings with the forest industry. Uh, so the traditional owners are obviously not like anyone else and we're certainly not destroying our land. We're trying to protect it for all of you people. Um, so why is a dedicated briefing being denied to the
>> I wasn't aware of that, Senator Thorpe. We'll have a look at that. Um, uh, it is the case that the department has met with representative of the forestry industry. They have also met with representatives of environment groups in
>> Yeah, but they're not the traditional owners.
>> we have. So, we um the minister's right. We've held um industry briefing sessions. I think 10 according to my account. I think we've had I was counting up earlier today looking at the ENGO and other stakeholder sessions. I think we've held a total of 14 of those um thus far across the process. Um in Tasmania um Pcel and I were down there not that long ago. Um, we met with a range of ENGOs and that included some First Nations people as part of that. So, and we've been seeking to take meetings whenever people approach us. So, I'm not I'm certainly not sure of any there's been no rebuking of anyone uh from my perspective. >> Well, that's what they're telling me.
That's why I'm asking the question.
>> Yeah. So,
>> so I'll put the rest on notice, but I do have to quickly ask about Japarong. >> Um, another section 18's been put in. Uh we're talking about ancient birthing trees over 800 years old, older than the before the invaders come. Japarang trees were used for birthing. They were culturally modified to allow families to be in the tree protected by the weather uh and to deliver babies. So my ancestors blood is in that beautiful part of the country and we have Japarang people being arrested. 40 cops from Melbourne in right cars rock up while we're trying to protect these beautiful trees and the landscaped around it. So, can I ask where the uh section 18 notice that you received on the 20th of October is at so that no more people are arrested and we can protect our place of worship cuz if it was a place of worship in a colonizer's mind, this wouldn't be happening. So, please tell me what's going on with
>> Yep. Uh, Senator Kandai, First Nations Cultural Heritage Divination. Uh, we do have a section 18 application for protection of uh, trees at Jabi that is currently under
Under assessment. >> Is Japarang trees and that landscape area been a problem for this government since she's arrived? Cuz this has been on the table for a long time. Well, I'm >> since I've been here in fact.
>> Okay. >> I don't I don't know about that history. What I am aware of is that an application was made >> about what eight days ago, six days ago, and that's now being considered by the
>> and that's it.
>> Well, that's what we do.
>> Okay. So, when do you get back? How long is the process? And how many more people do you have to do have like this tree is being cut down now. the um security guards allegedly poisoning the trees as well. So there's a whole lot of problems going on there and and until a decision is made at this level, it will continue to happen. There's also Nazis not far. So, it's a very problematic issue for this government that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency because people's lives are at risk >> and um sacred birthing trees. So, can you tell me how long that's going to take?
>> Senator, I can't give you a hard date on how long it will take to do the assessment. What I can tell you is that in doing the assessment, we will need to consider the cultural significance of uh in accordance with tradition, the threat or harm that is being defined in that application and the urgency that's within that application. Once we have all of that information, we are able to undertake the assessment and make a determination.
>> I'll have it to you tomorrow.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you to all. That concludes today's hearing. Thank you to all witnesses who appeared and to Hansarden Broadcasting for their assistance. The committee has agreed that responses to questions on notice should be provided by COB close of business 17th December 2026. I remind senators the committee has agreed that any written questions on notice should be lodged with the secretariat by 5 November 2026. I thank all participants in today's hearing and my colleagues for their assistance and the committee stands adjourned.