Chapter 2Key Issues
Introduction
2.1The inquiry received diverse views on the merits and drawbacks of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 (the bill). This chapter begins by exploring support for and opposition to the bill, then outlines the latest developments in koala recovery. The chapter concludes with the committee’s view and recommendation.
Status of the koala
2.2The current best available estimate for the national koala population is between 287 830 and 628 010 individuals. However, the koala population is not evenly distributed across its range spanning four states and the Australian Capital Territory.
2.3In February 2022, the combined koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) were up listed from ‘vulnerable’ to ‘endangered’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). According to the National Koala Monitoring Program, this ‘listed koala population’ is estimated at between 86 000 and 176 000 individuals.
2.4Koala populations in Victoria and South Australia are considered stable and not listed under the EPBC Act. The population across these two states is estimated by the National Koala Monitoring Program at between 170 780 and 383 570 individuals.
Support for the bill
2.5Many submitters expressed support for the bill noting declining koala population trends, and the inadequacy of current regulation. These arguments are outlined below.
Koala populations are declining
2.6Several submitters were supportive of the bill and saw it as a step in the right direction, especially in light of concerning statistics on koala population trends.
2.7For example, the Ecological Society of Australia gave evidence that ‘the koala population has continuously declined since European settlement’ and that the ‘[r]easons for this decline are varied, but generally fall under one of four threatening processes that interact:
Habitat loss
Urbanisation
Disease
Climate change’.
2.8Indeed, the World Wildlife Fund Australia (WWF-Australia) submitted that from ‘2000 to 2016, at least 885 596 hectares of forests and woodlands that are ‘known’ or ‘likely’ to be koala habitat were bulldozed’.
2.9WWF-Australia also outlined concerning koala population trends in NSW:
[T]he NSW koala population has declined by at least 28.52% (lower bound) to as high as 65.95% (upper bound) over the three most recent koala generations, inclusive of the impacts of the fire events up until mid‑December 2019.
2.10Similarly, Humane Society International (HSI) submitted that ‘Queensland’s koala population has crashed by at least 50 per cent since 2001 because of deforestation, drought and the recent bushfires’.
2.11Meanwhile, the Bob Brown Foundation discussed the impact of the 2019-2020 bushfires, noting estimates that more than 500 000 hectares of forest were lost and that 61 000 koalas died.
State regulation is inadequate
2.12Some submitters supported the bill’s passage in light of the ineffectiveness of state regulation to protect koala populations.
2.13For example, the University of New South Wales Law Society (UNSW Law Society) submitted that, in Queensland and NSW, state frameworks to protect the koala are ‘weak in practice’. That is, Queensland’s guidelines are ‘without the force of law’ and in NSW, protections can be avoided with a ‘conservation licence’.
2.14Similarly, the Bob Brown Foundation stated that ‘[s]tate-level protections and assessment processes are weak, ineffective, and are failing to halt threatened species decline. Therefore, Commonwealth legislation and other mechanisms must be strengthened such as [what is] proposed in this bill’.
2.15Likewise, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) argued that there are ‘inadequate protections provided by state and territory planning laws’, while the NSW Nature Conservation Council (NSW NCC) was of the view that Commonwealth protection was needed in NSW due to disconnected state frameworks:
In New South Wales, there is considerable uncertainty and concern about the State Government protections for koalas ...
The regulatory frameworks for protecting koala habitat in NSW are disconnected and failing. Across development control, rural land clearing, private native forestry and public native forestry, the destruction of koala habitat continues. This weak protection and prevailing uncertainty at the State level makes Commonwealth protection even more important.
2.16The NSW NCC concluded that ‘[i]n this context, the decisive measures specified in the proposed Bill represent a significant and refreshingly unambiguous step forward for koala conservation’.
Support for specific proposals in the bill
2.17Several submitters supported the bill’s specific proposal to prevent the Minister from approving actions that involve the clearing of koala habitat. For example, the NSW NCC welcomed the bill’s intention to introduce a moratorium on the clearing of koala habitat.
2.18Likewise, WWF-Australia argued that the amendment would ‘be a significant improvement upon the current approach under the [EPBC] Act to approve destruction of significant areas of koala habitat’.
2.19Similarly, the Bob Brown Foundation argued that ‘[a] prohibition on logging in areas where koalas are likely to be present or may be present in the future due to existence of feeding and habitat trees would be a good step forward to ensure their survival’.
2.20Regarding the bill’s proposal to establish a koala-specific significant impact test, WWF-Australia supported the amendments, arguing it would help to structure administrative and ministerial discretion. The HSI agreed that the additional statutory test for determining significant impacts on koalas is ‘vital’ and will ‘better protect koalas and their critical habitat’.
2.21The proposed addition of definitions relating to koala habitat was also expressly supported by some submitters such as WWF-Australia, who argued that ‘[t]his approach significantly improves the capacity of project proponents and decision makers to know if the land proposed for an activity is koala habitat’.
2.22Regarding the bill’s proposal to remove the EPBC exemption of forestry operations in Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) areas where operations will have or are likely to have significant impacts on koalas, HSI submitted that the removal was vital to protecting koalas and their critical habitat.
2.23WWF-Australia also supported the bill’s proposal in this regard but argued that the removal of the exemption for forestry operations in RFA areas from the application of the EPBC Act in general would be preferable.
The bill should be passed ahead of broader reforms to the EPBC Act
2.24The EPBC Act is independently reviewed at least every 10 years to check how effective the Act is at protecting Australia’s environment and heritage. The second independent review of the EPBC Act commenced on 29 October 2019 and was led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC (Samuel Review). The review report was publicly released in January 2021 and provided 38 recommendations (discussed further below).
2.25Many submitters supported the bill’s passage in the context of the Samuel Review, arguing that it should be passed in advance of broader reforms to the EPBC Act.
2.26For example, the EDO stated that ‘until such time that effective overarching reforms to the EPBC Act are delivered, the amendments proposed by the [bill] should be implemented to provide important protections for koalas and koala habitat’.
2.27The HSI stated that in the absence ‘of the wholesale reforms required to strengthen the EPBC Act, this Bill is required to give the koala the urgent protection it needs’.
2.28Likewise, the Landscape Foundation of Australia, a non-profit organisation focused on sustainable land planning, supported the passage of the bill in the context of the reforms recommended in the Samuel Review.
Additional protections sought
2.29Various submitters called for additional reforms to protect the koala species. For example, the UNSW Law Society argued that, while the bill is a ‘welcomed step’ towards saving koalas from extinction, ‘broader policy reforms that complement its implementation are required’. The UNSW Law Society suggested additional measures such as investment in habitat restoration projects be coupled with preventative measures under the EPBC Act to maximise the effectiveness of the bill.
2.30Additionally, the UNSW Law Society argued for increased funding for koala monitoring, suggesting that the current investment is insufficient for the difficult task of effective population monitoring. Funding arrangements are discussed at the end of this chapter.
2.31On a similar note, Koala Research – CQ, a research group at the Central Queensland University, suggested encouraging koala habitat protection by providing a package of incentives for property owners who currently retain, or are willing to retain, koala habitat.
2.32The Ecological Society of Australia noted there are other factors that threaten koala populations, arguing that without a coordinated effort to address all four of the main threatening processes facing koalas (habitat loss, urbanisation, disease, and climate change), populations would continue to decline.
2.33Some organisations that opposed the bill nevertheless acknowledged that the threats to koala populations extend beyond habitat loss. For example, Timber NSW stated that ‘[k]oalas are subject to many threats [and] land clearing is but one’, while the Victorian Forest Products Association (VFPA) urged the Federal Government to work with the states and territories to address the multitude of threats.
Opposition to the bill
2.34Some submitters opposed the bill, citing a range of Federal and state level protections already in place, the failure of the bill to distinguish between regional koala populations, and overly broad proposed definitions.
Federal and state protections are adequate
2.35Several submitters opposed the introduction of the bill, pointing to the array of existing protections at both the Federal and state levels. For example, Timber NSW, the largest association for native forestry operations in NSW, opposed the bill, stating that the bill ‘fails to acknowledge ... that there is a raft of existing legislation and policy that already [protects koala habitat and] controls land clearing activities’. Timber NSW provided the following examples:
At the national level ...
The National Forest Policy Statement and Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) framework that is underpinned by a Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system, [and]
The relationship between RFAs and the threatened species protection provisions under the EPBC Act.
In relation to NSW ...
The threatened species protection provisions under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016,
The various NSW Koala Habitat State Environmental Planning Policies,
The NSW Integrated Forestry Operation Approvals which apply to operations in public native forests and the Codes of Practice that apply to Private Native Forestry, and,
The Land Management Codes under the Local Land Services Act which regulate agricultural clearing activity.
2.36Timber NSW also pointed to the NSW Environmental Protection Agency which ‘independently regulates native forestry operations’ and has ‘a comprehensive set of operating rules that provide multiple layers of environmental safeguards, which protect native animals including koalas and their habitat’.
2.37Indeed, the VFPA pointed out that RFAs delegate responsibility to comply with the requirements of the EPBC Act to state governments to manage on behalf of the Commonwealth, and that the existing range of both Federal and state government investment in koala management means that the provisions of the bill are unwarranted.
The bill fails to recognise differences in regional populations
2.38Some submitters argued that the bill fails to recognise differences in koala populations across Australia. For example, the VFPA opposed the bill due to the overabundance of koalas in Victoria, which in some areas leads to over‑browsing of its habitat, arguing that the bill would lead to perverse impacts on industry in that state due to its failure to distinguish between declining and growing populations.
2.39The Australian Forest Products Association New South Wales raised similar concerns.
2.40Indeed, while not opposed to the bill, the Ecological Society of Australia gave evidence that some koala populations are actively managed to reduce the population in order to address overgrazing of food trees.
Proposed definitions are overly broad
2.41Some submitters argued that the definitions proposed in the bill were too broad. For example, Timber NSW argued that the bill’s definition of koala habitat and koala habitat trees is ‘unduly broad’ and ‘captures nearly all the native forests that are the subject of NSW Regional Forest Agreements’, treats them as land clearing activities, and therefore ‘puts the native forestry industry at risk’.
2.42Similarly, Youth for Conservation, the youth arm of the Coalition Climate Network, was of the view that the definition of koala habitat proposed was too vague and ‘has the potential to overregulate an unreasonably large area of forest, woodland and bushland’ which could ‘have detrimental environmental, social and economic effects’.
Latest developments
Implementation of the Government’s response to the Samuel Review
2.43In January 2021, the Final Report of the Independent Review of the EPBC Act conducted by Professor Graeme Samuel AC (Samuel Review) was released. The Samuel Review found that significant reform of the EPBC Act is required.
2.44The Samuel Review provided 38 recommendations to reverse the current state of environmental decline and enable Australia to meet future development needs sustainably and economically.
2.45In December 2022, the Australian Government responded to the findings of the Samuel Review by releasing its ‘Nature Positive Plan’ which outlines a pathway for significant environmental law reforms. The reforms focus on establishing National Environmental Standards to set out the outcomes that are seeking to be achieved across a range of domains. The Australian Government has committed to work with stakeholders and relevant jurisdictions towards applying the National Environmental Standards to RFAs.
2.46The Australian Government is currently working on developing the National Environmental Standards beginning with Matters of National Environmental Significance, restoration actions and restoration contributions, and regional planning. Broad consultation on the draft standards, and the introduction of the standards into Federal Parliament, is expected to occur in 2024.
Increased listing to ‘endangered’ in some states
2.47On 11 February 2022, the former Federal Environment Minister announced the koala species listing would move from vulnerable to endangered in NSW, Queensland, and the ACT. The koala species now has an approved conservation advice as at 12 February 2022 which is in effect under the EPBC Act. A national recovery plan was released in March 2022 and outlines the research and management actions to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, koalas.
2.48The koala (in NSW, Queensland, and the ACT) has also been identified as a priority species in the 2022-2032 Threatened Species Action Plan (TSAP). The TSAP sets out the Australian Government’s plan for threatened species conservation and recovery over the next decade. The TSAP has four 10-year objectives that will be met through consecutive 5-year targets and actions. The first of these 10-year objectives is to reduce the risk of extinction for all priority species, including the koala.
Commonwealth funding committed to koala recovery
2.49In April 2022, the Australian Government released a National Recovery Plan for the koala, setting a pathway for investment and action to support the recovery of the species.
2.50In May 2022, $24.5 million was committed towards koala conservation over four years under the Saving Native Species Program. This builds on existing investments in koala conservation with a total of more than $70 million over four years of investment into koala conservation, including community grants, large-scale habitat restoration activities, monitoring and koala health initiatives.
2.51In its submission, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) advised that the Australian Government had also invested in initiatives such as the Regional Land Partnerships program, the Environment Restoration Fund, and the $200 million bushfire response package for native wildlife and habitat recovery. However, this funding is not specific to koala recovery.
2.52DCCEEW noted that state and territory governments are also investing in on‑ground action and research to support koalas and that the Australian and state governments are working together to ensure efforts are complementary. For example, by ensuring that koala habitat restoration projects are informed by relevant strategic conservation documents and plans at the local, state, and national levels.
Committee view
2.53The committee recognises the national and cultural significance of koalas to Australia and acknowledges the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding declining population trends in specific areas.
2.54The committee notes that habitat loss is one of several threats to koala populations. The Australian Government has listed the koala species as endangered in NSW, Queensland, and the ACT as well as released conservation advice and a national recovery plan for the species. The committee acknowledges that significant Commonwealth funding has been allocated to the protection and recovery of koala populations and looks forward to seeing the results of this investment in conjunction with work being undertaken by state governments in this regard.
2.55The committee notes the Australian Government’s Nature Positive Plan and the commitment towards applying National Environmental Standards to Regional Forest Agreements. The committee also acknowledges that the listed koala populations have been identified as a priority species in the 2022-2032 Threatened Species Action Plan and that there are specific targets and actions to be undertaken over the next decade that will reduce the risk of extinction.
2.56The committee acknowledges suggestions that broader reform to the EPBC Act is required, and notes that, since evidence to this inquiry was received, significant consultation has been undertaken by the Australian Government to introduce broader EPBC Act reforms as a result of the Samuel Review. The committee is of the view that stronger outcomes will be achieved via the broader EPBC Act reforms, and that these should be effectively implemented rather than measures aimed at protecting a single species.
2.57In light of these developments, the committee is of the view that the bill is not warranted.
Recommendation 1
2.58The committee recommends that the bill not be passed.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair