Chapter Nine
CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY
Part 1
Overview
9.1 The Committee notes that the Bill represents the first time that
the Commonwealth government has legislated for the holistic concept of
biodiversity conservation. [1] The Committee commends the effort to draw together
the many components and mechanisms of biodiversity conservation. The Bill
provides a substantially improved legal framework for the conservation
and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity and complements the biodiversity
conservation measures provided for by the Natural Heritage Trust. [2]
For the first time, legislative basis is provided for the protection of
Ramsar wetlands and migratory species.
Identifying and Monitoring Biodiversity
9.2 Clause 171 of the Bill empowers the Minister to cooperate with, and
give financial or other assistance to, any person for the purpose of identifying
and monitoring components of biodiversity. Clauses 172 and 173 provide
that in relation to listed threatened species, listed communities, listed
migratory species and listed marine species in Commonwealth areas, the
Minister must prepare inventories within specified time limits.
Financial or Other Assistance
9.3 Key conservation groups supported the provision of financial and
other assistance to assist in the identification and monitoring of components
of biodiversity, but suggested that the Bill make it clear that such assistance
extends to the nomination of threatened species, ecological communities
and key threatening processes. [3] The Environmental Defender's Office also recommended
that conditions and criteria for giving assistance should be set out in
the Bill and not left to the unfettered discretion of the Minister. [4]
9.4 The Committee finds that the scope of Commonwealth cooperation and
assistance does not need further clarification. It is quite clear that
clause 171 provides for cooperation and assistance in relation to the
identification and monitoring of species, habitats, ecological communities,
genes, ecosystems and ecological processes. The identification of threatened
species, threatened communities and threatening processes is well within
the scope of such activities. It would be open to the Commonwealth and
other parties to pursue the nomination and listing of such species, communities
and processes as a result of identification and monitoring activities
carried out under clause 171.
9.5 The Committee notes that clause 171(5), relating to the setting of
conditions on financial and other assistance, is consistent with Commonwealth
policy in relation to the provision of grants. Placing rigid conditions
and criteria on the giving of assistance would reduce the Bill's effectiveness
in providing for a multitude of unforeseen needs that characteristically
arise from the dynamic and varied nature of biodiversity conservation.
The Committee considers that the Minister should have flexibility in providing
financial and other assistance for biodiversity identification and monitoring.
National Database or Monitoring Program
9.6 Several submissions suggested that the Bill should provide for a
`National Biological Diversity Identification and Monitoring Program'.
[5] Dr Judy West, Director of the Centre for
Plant Biodiversity Research, also suggested to the Committee that the
Bill require the Minister and the Department `to facilitate and coordinate
national databases of flora, vegetation and non-biotic environmental information,
in collaboration with State and other agencies'. [6]
9.7 The Committee considers that it would be inappropriate to legislate
for databases or programs relating to the identification and monitoring
of biodiversity. These are purely administrative matters.
9.8 The Committee notes that Environment Australia already administers
the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS), a program aiming to
provide the underlying taxonomic knowledge needed for the conservation
and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity. [7]
That program has been established since 1978 and is recognised nationally
and internationally as playing a major role in providing the fundamental
data needed to classify Australia's biodiversity. [8]
9.9 The Department also administers the Environmental Resources Information
Network (ERIN), which is responsible for developing and managing a comprehensive,
accurate and accessible information base for the Government's environmental
decisions and for community use. Through the Internet, ERIN provides access
to a large reservoir of information on the Australian environment, including
biodiversity, and the analytical tools to interpret it. The information
is drawn from many sources and includes maps, species distributions, documents
and satellite imagery, covering environmental themes ranging from endangered
species to drought and pollution. [9]
Bioregional Plans
9.10 Clauses 176 and 177 provide for making bioregional plans. The Committee
notes that bioregional plans will:
enable the setting of priorities to better focus conservation actions
and will provide a consistent framework for more detailed management plans
for priority species, communities and ecosystems. Bioregional plans will
also assist in the development of management plans for World Heritage
properties and Ramsar wetlands. [10]
9.11 The Committee notes that, in this respect, the Bill is consistent
with the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological
Diversity, which provides for bioregional planning to manage biodiversity.
[11]
Lack of Definition of `Bioregion'
9.12 A number of submissions were concerned that the Bill does not include
a definition of the term `bioregion'. [12]
9.13 While the Committee notes that the term `bioregion' is explained
in paragraph 280 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, [13]
the Committee feels that it would be more beneficial for the Bill itself
to define the term explicitly. This would alleviate the need for reference
to the Explanatory Memorandum, which can only serve as an extrinsic aid
for interpretation of the Bill. [14]
Recommendation 15
The Committee recommends that the Bill include a definition of a bioregion.
Making Bioregional Plans Compulsory
9.14 Several submissions saw a need to remove the Minister's discretion
relating to the preparation and use of bioregional plans. [15]
9.15 The Committee notes that the Bill is intended to provide a framework
within which the Commonwealth may assist and cooperate with States to
develop bioregional plans and that bioregional plans are not intended
to provide an additional layer of compulsory and coercive rules. [16] The Committee considers that the Bill will foster
bioregional planning to facilitate the conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity by providing appropriate incentives to States and other
parties. In the Committee's view, the inclusion of mandatory or coercive
provisions for bioregional plans would detract from the cooperative approach
proposed in the Bill.
9.16 The Committee notes that the Bill establishes mandatory requirements
in relation to a range of other planning mechanisms, such as recovery
plans, threat abatement plans, wildlife conservation plans, and management
plans for World Heritage properties, Ramsar wetlands and Commonwealth
reserves.
Public Consultation
9.17 The Environmental Defender's Office considered that there was a
need for `public participation in the preparation, development and enforcement
of bioregional plans.' [17] The Minerals Council
of Australia was concerned that the absence of any requirement for public
consultation might provide `considerable scope for the creation of planning
documents that may eventually constrain or divert the Minister's subsequent
decision under other parts of the Act.' [18] Another industry concern was the potential for
bioregional plans to hamper mineral exploration unless consultation had
occurred in the development of the bioregional plan. [19]
9.18 The Committee notes that clause 176(e) already provides for bioregional
plans to include provisions relating to community involvement in implementation
of the plans. The Committee considers, however, that the development of
effective bioregional plans which are supported by the community will
necessarily require public input.
9.19 The Committee believes that far from constraining or diverting the
Minister's decision making, bioregional plans will serve as a decision
making tool to assist the Minister by providing a regional overview that
integrates environmental, social and economic objectives. Importantly,
the Committee notes that the Minister is able, but not required, to give
consideration to a bioregional plan when making a decision.
Recommendation 16
The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide for public
consultation during the creation of bioregional plans over both Commonwealth
and State areas.
Threatened Species and Ecological Communities – Listing and Nomination
9.20 The Bill provides for an improved listing process through the use
of threatened species listing categories that are consistent with the
categories established by the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) Red List. [20] The Bill provides
for the inclusion of new listing categories of critically endangered,
extinct in the wild and conservation dependent. For the first time, vulnerable
ecological communities are included. Amendment of lists of species and
communities is provided for under clause 184, pursuant to the obligations
set out under clauses 186, 187, 188 and 189. [21]
Consultation with States and Territories on Listing
9.21 State and Territory Government submissions have suggested that the
clauses concerned with amendment of lists and maintenance of lists of
threatened species, threatened ecological communities and key threatening
processes in an up-to-date condition, should require consultation with
States prior to their amendment or should be broader in their consultation
requirements. [22]
9.22 The Committee does not think that the Bill should be amended to
provide for the Minister to consult with States and Territories when amending
or maintaining lists on threatened native species and ecological communities.
These are clearly matters of national environmental significance for which
the Commonwealth has the responsibility. The amendments are disallowable
instruments laid before Parliament and the Minister must consider advice
from the Scientific Committee on the proposed amendment. [23]
9.23 In relation to amending lists of key threatening processes, the
Bill provides for consultation with States and Territories that may be
affected by or interested in abatement of the process, on the feasibility,
effectiveness or efficiency of preparing and implementing a nationally
coordinated threat abatement plan to abate the process. [24] Clearly, in this circumstance, the Bill indicates
an intention to seek a cooperative national approach to combat a key threatening
process.
Additional Categories
9.24 A number of submissions have suggested that the Bill needs to go
further by providing more categories for listing. Each of these is discussed
in turn below.
Near Threatened
9.25 Several submissions have raised a concern that the category of conservation
dependent is not also accompanied by the category of `near threatened':
To conservation dependent must be added a new `near threatened'
category (`taxa that are not Conservation Dependent but almost qualify
for the Vulnerable category, World Conservation Union, 1996). Near threatened
species will become increasingly vulnerable unless conservation action
is taken, and in fact are more of a priority for listing than those species
which are conservation dependent (already have plans in place). [25]
9.26 The Committee notes the structure, below, of categories provided
by the IUCN. [26]
9.27 The category `conservation dependent' derives from the lower risk
category strand. The lower risk category also consists of the proposed
additional `near threatened'.
9.28 The Committee observes that clause 179(6) of the Bill defines `conservation
dependent' so as to include those native species that are the focus of
a conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species
becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered within a period
of five years. Senator Hill also indicated that:
Listing under this category will emphasise the need for continued assistance
with conservation programs and the need for monitoring and reporting on
the conservation status of the species. [27]
9.29 Under clause 190, the Scientific Committee can give the Minister
advice as to any action that is necessary to prevent the species or community
becoming threatened. In turn, the Minister must have regard to any advice
so given in performing any function or exercising any power under the
Bill relevant to the species or community.
9.30 As such, the Committee considers that the Bill's definition of conservation
dependent adequately covers the spectrum of species becoming threatened.
While the categories of threatened species in the Bill are consistent
with the IUCN categories there is no need to subsume all of the IUCN categories
available. The principal categories of most concern in Australia have
been included within the Bill. The Committee is satisfied that the Bill
draws the line appropriately at the most effective and efficient level
for ensuring the protection of species in Australia.
Internationally Threatened Species
9.31 Several suggestions have been made in submissions for the inclusion
of a category of `internationally threatened species'.
Australia has an obligation under the Biodiversity Convention to assist
international efforts to conserve global biodiversity, including the protection
of species which are internationally threatened, but which are not threatened
within Australia and for which Australia provides a viable place of refuge.
If a species is listed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as critically
endangered, endangered or vulnerable, the Bill should provide for automatic
listing in this new category and require that a wildlife conservation
plan be developed. [28]
9.32 The Committee acknowledges this suggestion. The Committee does not
think that the addition of a category of `internationally threatened species'
would add anything to the Bill's protection regime. The species suggested
by the Humane Society International, `the Dugong, Irrawaddy Dolphin and
the Indo-Pacific Humpback Whale', would already be covered under
the listing for whales and other cetaceans and marine species.
9.33 The migratory species listing provisions are adequate to cover species
that Australia shares with other countries. Remaining categories that
do not catch the internationally threatened species may well be caught
by State and Territory legislation governing reserves, zoological and
botanical gardens or related areas.
Critical Habitat
9.34 A concern mentioned in a number of submissions relates to the Bill
not providing for the listing and protection of critical habitat:
The concept of critical habitat is a basic tenet of conservation, recognised
as crucial for the long term survival of threatened species and communities.
Such habitat should clearly be identified in both law and practice. Indeed,
legislation in NSW, Qld, Vic and Tas all provide for special recognition
of critical habitat. In order for the proposed Commonwealth Act to meet
`best practice' standards, it must contain a provision for identifying
and listing critical habitat. [29]
9.35 The Department of the Environment and Heritage indicated that:
In preparation of the Bill the concept of `critical habitat' and its
use in other jurisdictions was examined closely. This is a concept which
is subject to a wide variety of professional opinion. It was determined
that the most appropriate mechanism for addressing the critical habitat
issue was to require critical habitat to be defined in recovery plans.
[30]
9.36 The Committee notes that, while the Bill does not provide for the
listing of critical habitat, clause 270(2)(d) requires recovery plans
to `identify the habitats that are critical to the survival of the species
or community concerned and the actions needed to protect those habitats.'
Clause 287(2)(d) also provides for identification of habitats for migratory,
marine and cetacean species. It is likely that bioregional plans and the
management plans for the various categories of protected areas will also
identify critical habitat, where appropriate.
9.37 Thus, the Committee finds that critical habitat will clearly be
identified under the Bill and appropriate action will be taken to protect
critical habitats.
Populations
9.38 The Humane Society International submitted that the Bill should
`include coverage of critically endangered and vulnerable populations.'
[31]
9.39 The Committee notes that clause 517 enables the Minister to determine
that a distinct population of biological entities is a species for the
purposes of the Bill. [32] This provision will
allow threatened populations to be protected as threatened species, where
appropriate. Under clause 270(2)(e), recovery plans must also identify
any populations of a threatened species or community that are under particular
pressure of survival and the actions needed to protect those populations.
IUCN Criteria
9.40 TRAFFIC Oceania has suggested that the IUCN criteria be adopted
under the Bill:
We recommend the IUCN criteria be used for listing species in all relevant
categories where possible. [33]
9.41 As noted earlier, the Bill provides for categories that are consistent
with the IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN criteria provide a quantitative
means for assessing threats. It is not necessary for the Bill to include
the IUCN criteria as the Bill clearly sets out the means for assessing
the listing eligibility in the relevant clauses. [34]
Practicable and Feasible Threat Abatement Plan
9.42 Under clause 183, the Minister is obliged to establish a list of
threatening processes that are key threatening processes. A key threatening
process is defined as a process that threatens, or may threaten, the survival,
abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological
community. [35] The Minister must not add a
threatening process to the list unless satisfied that it is eligible to
be treated as a key threatening process. [36]
The final determination for eligibility is that the preparation and implementation
of a nationally coordinated threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective
and efficient way to abate the process. [37]
9.43 The Minister's need to consider whether the threat abatement plan
is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate a key threatening
process has been considered inappropriate by some submissions. [38]
For example, the Otway Planning Association argued that `it is inappropriate
for this consideration to be taken into account. The decision to list
ought to be a purely scientific one'. [39]
9.44 The Committee finds that the Bill takes a practical approach to
the listing of key threatening processes. While a key threatening process
may be identified scientifically, it may not be practical or possible
to prepare and implement a plan that will successfully address the threat.
In such circumstances, it would be futile to produce a threat abatement
plan and the listing of a key threatening process would have no legal
effect.
9.45 If a key threatening process is not listed as a result of it not
being feasible to create a threat abatement plan, the Committee considers
that the Bill should make explicit provision for its renomination should
new information become available that makes it practicable and feasible
to prepare a plan. As the Bill currently stands, clause 191(6)(a) implicitly
precludes this if the Minister so chooses.
Recommendation 17
The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to enable the re-nomination
of a key threatening process initially rejected for the reason of it not
being practicable and feasible to prepare and implement a nationally coordinated
threat abatement plan, when new information makes it practicable and feasible
to develop a plan for abating the key threatening process.
Nomination (Clause 191)
Persons Interested in Nominations
9.46 The Committee notes that the Bill makes provision for `a person'
to make a nomination of a native species, an ecological community or a
threatening process. [40]
9.47 It has been suggested that the Bill establish a `register of interested
people and organisations interested in receiving information on nominations',
in order that the public can provide input into the nomination process.
[41] The fishing industry thought that those `whose
interests may be adversely affected by a nomination' should be given the
opportunity to comment on the nomination. [42]
9.48 The Report of the 1998 Review of the Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992 recommended that such a register be established. [43]
The Committee notes that this recommendation has been accepted and implemented
by the Government and that further action on this matter is not required:
This recommendation has already been implemented administratively. In
December 1997, advertisements were placed in the Australian, inviting
interested persons to nominate for inclusion in this register. [44]
Time Limit on Nomination Process
9.49 The Committee notes that, while the Bill does place a time limit
on the Scientific Committee making its recommendation, (a time period
not currently provided for under the Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992), the Bill does not place a time limit on the Minister from
the time of receipt of a nomination to the time that the Minister passes
on that nomination to the Scientific Committee. The Committee considers
that making a time limit at this stage would assist in streamlining the
assessment of nominations, as well as reassuring the community that nominations
are dealt with quickly.
9.50 The Committee suggests that the Bill should be amended to provide
for a reasonable period of time of about two to three months for the Minister
to forward nominations to the Scientific Committee. This would provide
a balance between the Minister's administrative processing needs and the
importance of enabling the nomination process to proceed quickly.
Recommendation 18
The Committee recommends that clause 191(2) of the Bill be amended to
provide that the Minister must forward a nomination of a threatened species,
threatened ecological community, or key threatening process to the Scientific
Committee within a reasonable period of time from receipt of the nomination.
Vexatious Nominations – Clause 191(6)
9.51 The Bill enables the Minister to reject nominations on the grounds
that they have already been nominated, the nomination is considered to
be vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith, the nomination has
not been made in accordance with the regulations or additional information
has not been provided. [45]
9.52 Some submitters considered it unnecessary to provide for rejection
of a nomination. [46]
9.53 The Committee does not find this clause problematic. It is intended
to prevent abuse of the nomination process and to ensure that time and
resources are not tied up by nominations that have not been given careful
consideration or that are not genuine. It will not affect genuine nominations.
9.54 The Committee notes that there is a similar provision in the New
South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. [47]
Unlike the New South Wales legislation, however, this Bill does not provide
for a penalty in the instance of a deliberate vexatious nomination.
9.55 The Committee is satisfied, therefore, that the clause is warranted
as a means of ensuring that the administration of the listing process
is effective and concentrates on genuine submissions for nomination.
Emergency Interim Protection
9.56 The Environmental Defender's Office has suggested a need for the
provision of emergency interim protection. Citing possible lengthy delays
in listing and development of recovery plans, the EDO fears that protection
may come too late:
Additionally, there is also concern that the mere fact of nomination
may encourage a perpetrator to speed up the threatening process before
listing takes place. Emergency listings should be determined on the basis
of scientific evidence by the Scientific Committee. [48]
9.57 The Committee considers that the Bill is capable of ensuring that
adequate protection is provided quickly. The Bill provides a clause for
the immediate listing of a threatened species thought to be extinct, where
the Minister is satisfied that it has definitely being located in nature
since last listed as extinct without having to seek advice from the Scientific
Committee. [49] This clause, along with the
reality that the Scientific Committee would be aware from the nomination
itself as to the urgency of need for protection measures, will provide
adequate safeguards under the Bill.
Commonwealth Area – Listing and Offences
Lists and Inventories
9.58 Many submitters were concerned that threatened species listing and
offences did not extend beyond Commonwealth areas. The Environmental Defender's
Office suggested that there was a need to maintain national inventories,
reasoning that `To limit inventories to Commonwealth land and waters is
ineffective and will result in a skewed picture.' [50]
9.59 The application of offences beyond Commonwealth land was also raised
as a concern:
there is nothing really that the Commonwealth can do on the ground to
stop the taking or killing of a Commonwealth listed species where it is
not on Commonwealth land, providing it is not done by the Commonwealth.
As soon as the species flops across the border off Commonwealth land onto
State controlled land, it is not an offence against the Commonwealth to
take or kill that species. It is highlighted when you have regard to migratory
species which, by definition, move. [51]
9.60 The Committee was informed also that `some States do not
even have threatened species legislation.' [52]
The Committee, however, finds that regulatory protection for native species
and communities is covered in every jurisdiction, though not necessarily
under a statute purely devoted to threatened species protection. [53]
9.61 The Committee thinks that it is appropriate that the Bill focus
on listing and offence provisions within Commonwealth areas. Such a focus
is in line with the recognition that State and Territory threatened species
protection legislation already covers listing, protection and enforcement
processes. Otherwise, there would be a risk of duplication and uncertainty,
which the Bill seeks to allay. The Bill seeks to provide for joint recovery,
threat abatement and wildlife conservation plans over State or Territory
areas, or adoption of State and Territory plans with any necessary modifications.
[54] Joint plans will adequately provide consistent
approaches across Australia.
9.62 The Committee notes that the Commonwealth has a long history of
cooperating with States and Territories in threatened species protection.
This is clearly recognised by the Australian National Strategy, Conservation
of Australian Species and Ecological Communities Threatened with Extinction,
and the Natural Heritage Trust Endangered Species Program. [55]
Both the Strategy and the Program focus on the involvement of all levels
of government and assume a cooperative approach to protection of endangered
species and communities.
9.63 Other examples of the cooperative approach taken by the Commonwealth
include the cooperative development of wildlife conservation programs
under section 19 of the current National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Act 1974 and the enforcement of the export and import of wildlife
products under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports)
Act 1982.
9.64 These cooperative approaches demonstrate clearly that the Commonwealth
has relied upon State and Territory protection and enforcement processes
to cover the reach of Australia. The Committee does not think that this
should be changed.
Protecting All Native Wildlife in Commonwealth Areas
9.65 Mr Michael Kennedy, Director of the Humane Society International,
pointed out what he considered to be an anomaly which needs to be fixed:
Each State protects wildlife across the board, threatened or not, unless
it is unprotected for a specific reason. It appears … that the Commonwealth
does not protect all wildlife as a matter of fact. That needs to be redressed
so that they are in line with the rest of the country … you need
to protect common species from general injury from individuals. [56]
9.66 The Committee notes that the usual scheme of wildlife protection
legislation across Australia is to protect all native species at varying
levels dependent upon their conservation status. [57]
9.67 In light of the general protection offered to native species in
State and Territory legislation, the Committee thinks that it would be
beneficial for the Commonwealth to give consideration to providing general
protection to native species on Commonwealth areas. While the Committee
notes that the issue of enforcement may cause some difficulties, especially
in relation to marine species, the Committee considers that the concept
is worthy of further analysis to assess whether it would be possible to
bring the Commonwealth position into line with the remaining Australian
jurisdictions.
9.68 The Committee considers that inclusion of this approach would signal
the intent of the Commonwealth to make provision for protecting the general
welfare of all native species within Commonwealth areas, regardless of
their category.
Recommendation 19
The Committee recommends that the Minister gives consideration to
amending the Bill to provide for the protection of all species on Commonwealth
land unless the protection has been deliberately exempted by a Schedule
attached to the Bill.
Animal Welfare
9.69 A general concern was raised that the Bill does not provide for
animal welfare:
while we do not necessarily want duplication, we do want safeguards there.
In this particular Bill I did not notice that there was any specific direction
to State based animal cruelty legislation. [58]
9.70 The Committee notes the animal welfare concern. Specific treatment
of animal welfare is clearly a State and Territory responsibility. [59]
The Bill is concerned to enhance biodiversity conservation and it is within
this framework that animals will be protected. The Bill puts into place
a range of offences to protect against harm to members of listed threatened
species, listed ecological communities, listed migratory species, cetaceans
and listed marine species. [60]
9.71 In issuing a permit to undertake an action that would otherwise
constitute an offence, the permit can only be authorised if the Minister
is satisfied that one of four strict conditions applies. [61]
There are valid reasons for the permit structure and the Committee believes
that conditions placed on permits will ensure that protection of members
of species occurs.
9.72 Exemptions from offences besides strictly regulated permits also
take into account animal protection considerations. Such exemptions include
circumstances where the action taken was humane and was reasonably necessary
to relieve or prevent the suffering by a member of a species or community,
an emergency required action to prevent serious threat to human life or
property or the action was reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human
health. [62] The strict limitations on the exemptions indicate
the intention of the Bill to protect the welfare of members of species.
9.73 It is not appropriate to refer to State anti-cruelty legislation
in the Bill. It is common knowledge that the legislation is in existence.
Humane Taking Open to Abuse
9.74 TRAFFIC Oceania raised an issue that the Bill should provide for
additional protection where animals have been taken from the wild for
humane reasons:
In addition there is room for abuse in the legislation where threatened
animals are taken from the wild for humane reasons. Provisions should
be added to ensure animals are returned to the wild where possible, or
given to a registered institution for treatment. [63]
9.75 The Committee considers that there is a potential problem. Even
though a person is obliged by clause 199 to notify the Secretary that
a humane taking has occurred, the Minister does not have the power then
to order further action once notified. This may leave the humane treatment
of an injured animal incapable of being further regulated. The Minister
should be capable of making further orders, such as the suggested orders,
to ensure that the best interests of the member of the threatened species
are followed through.
Recommendation 20
The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide that
the Minister can order further reasonable action to be taken in the case
of notification of a humane action that has occurred, such as returning
the animal to the wild or seeking professional care for it.
Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises
9.76 Clause 246 provides that the Commonwealth is the owner of any cetacean
that is killed or taken by any person regardless of whether the act was
an offence under the Division 3 of Chapter 5. Division 3 applies outside
areas of Australian jurisdiction, both in international waters and foreign
national jurisdictions where an activity involves an Australian citizen,
Australian vessel, aircraft or members of the crew of such vessels or
aircraft, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies. [64]
Cetacean Offences Extending Too Far
9.77 In giving evidence before the Committee, Mr Peter Cochrane, Deputy
Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration
Association Ltd, thought that the provisions protecting cetaceans were
too broad. He was concerned that:
An Australian company would be guilty of an offence potentially if a
whale was directed off course by an offshore seismic survey vessel, say,
off the coast of Africa without a permit issued by the Minister, unless
it was an unavoidable accident, in which case the defendant bears the
evidentiary burden. [65]
9.78 The Committee notes that the Government considers the protection
of whales a high priority. [66] The Committee
also notes the Government's intention to nominate for listing under the
Bonn Convention all dolphin and porpoise species inhabiting Australian
waters. [67] One of the key actions for achieving whale protection
is the establishment of an Australian Whale Sanctuary under clause 225
of the Bill:
The establishment of this Sanctuary complements Australia's efforts at
the international level to secure, through the establishment of a truly
global sanctuary, a permanent international ban on commercial whaling.
[68]
9.79 The intention is to ensure that the highest level of protection
possible is provided for cetaceans. Australia has the capacity to legislate
for its own citizens wherever they may be in the world. [69]
The Committee finds that the provisions protecting cetaceans extraterritorially
are appropriate.
Section 18 of the Whale Protection Act and Permit Scrutiny
9.80 Project Jonah, a conservation organisation concerned with the protection
of whales, stated that both itself and Animals Australia were concerned
at the deletion of section 18 of the current Whale Protection Act 1980:
The Whale Protection Act 1980 – section 18, provides for
an open and critical examination of the methodology and objectives of
the various scientific research proposals which has acted as a control
on the more enthusiastic projects. Project Jonah and Animals Australia
believe that public scrutiny by the community of their procedures has
had a salutary effect on those devising these projects. It should be noted
that cetacean research is still a relatively new science and as such requires
strict regulatory controls. [70]
9.81 Giving evidence to the Committee, Mrs Henrietta Kaye, President
of Project Jonah, indicated that:
I have been speaking with the Government, and they assure me that it
was an omission and that it should definitely be reinstated, particularly
as the public is so interested in what is going on with whales. [71]
9.82 The Committee notes the utility of the existing provision on public
scrutiny in the current Whale Protection Act 1980. The Committee
notes the willingness of the Government to remedy the omission and supports
an amendment to ensure that the scrutiny provision is reinstated into
the Bill.
Recommendation 21
The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide for public
notification of permits relating to cetaceans and to provide the opportunity
for public scrutiny by way of comments, similar to the current section
18 under the Whale Protection Act 1980.
Marine Species
Breadth of List of Marine Species
9.83 Some industry submissions consider that the listing of marine species
is too wide and without support:
The inclusion of whole orders, families and in the case of birds, the
entire class, provides an enormous coverage of species, many of which
are in sufficient numbers to be pests in their own right, such as seagulls.
With such breadth of coverage, the scope for breaching the Act (s254)
is very wide. [72]
9.84 The provision of protection for marine species under the Bill is
not new. Marine species are currently protected under Part 3 of the National
Parks and Wildlife Regulations. Regulation 46 provides that a `protected
animal' includes, in relation to waters, an animal specified in Schedules
1, 2 or 3. The Schedules include such families, genus and species as sea
snakes, seals and sea lions, all members of the class aves occurring naturally
in places to which the regulations apply, crocodiles, dugong, marine turtles
and leathery turtles.
9.85 The Committee finds, therefore, that the protection of marine species
is continued as it currently exists. The Committee does not think that
routine activities of corporations will be disturbed by the continuance
of the status quo, as the change simply relates to inclusion of marine
species within the Bill, rather than within the regulations as at present.
Bycatch Plans As an Action Not Needing a Permit
9.86 Fishing industry groups submitted that clause 255 of the Bill should
take into account Bycatch Action Plans:
A National Bycatch Policy is being formulated. This will result in Bycatch
Action Plans for all fisheries. SAFIC has sectors such as the prawn industry
that have proactively addressed the bycatch issue in South Australia very
successfully. S255 of the Bill does not allow for incidental bycatch as
a stated reason for avoiding prosecution under s254. [73]
9.87 The Committee acknowledges the proactive measures that are being
undertaken by the fishing industry in relation to the development of bycatch
plans. The Committee also notes the underlying concern of the fishing
industry at the involvement of an environmental department in fisheries
issues.
9.88 The Committee notes that the Commonwealth Government has been developing
a by-catch reduction plan. This plan will require the Australian Fisheries
Management Agency to develop by-catch plans for all Commonwealth fisheries
within the current term of government. Priority is to be given to those
fisheries in which by-catch poses a considerable risk to endangered and
vulnerable marine wildlife. [74] Under clause 265, the Minister may accredit fisheries
plans of management. If these plans of management include by-catch reduction
plans, then clause 255(k) will exempt actions taken pursuant to an accredited
fisheries management plan from needing to obtain a permit.
Invasive Species
9.89 Several submissions have concentrated on the need for invasive species
to be included as a category for regulation under the Bill. [75]
Mr James Pittock, Program Leader of Nature Conservation for the World
Wide Fund for Nature Australia, told the Committee that:
What we are asking is for this Bill to include an additional section,
similar to the current Endangered Species Protection Act provisions,
which would enable any member of the public to nominate to an expert committee
a species which could be regarded as environmentally dangerous, for that
nomination to be reviewed by an expert committee and for a recommendation
to be made to the Federal Environment Minister for that species to be
listed if it is considered dangerous. [76]
9.90 The Committee notes the support amongst submitters for the inclusion
of invasive species under the Bill and recognises the effort contributed
by those submissions seeking such an inclusion.
9.91 The Committee notes, however, that the Commonwealth Government has
a number of well-targeted policies and programs for dealing with nationally
significant feral animals and weeds that are already present in Australia.
The National Weeds Strategy was published in June 1997, and a National
Feral Animal Control Strategy is being prepared. [77] The Bushcare, Landcare, and Green Corps programs,
also funded from the Natural Heritage Trust, involve elements of exotic
species control. Recently the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service
(AQIS) developed a Weeds Risk Assessment process to prevent potentially
damaging weed species from entering Australia.
9.92 The Government has proposed amendments to the Quarantine Act
1908 to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed in AQIS's
risk assessment processes. [78] Additional amendments have been introduced into
Parliament to further strengthen environmental considerations in quarantine
decisions. [79] These new provisions will ensure that the Commonwealth
Environment Minister will be formally consulted if a proposed importation
of plant, animals or goods is likely to have a significant impact on the
environment.
9.93 The Committee notes that the Government is proposing to establish
an `alert list' to prevent the spread of exotic species already in Australia
that are not yet out of control but pose a high environmental risk:
The list will highlight potential risks associated with each species
and be used to ensure these species do not become major problems. It will,
for example, identify exotic species newly discovered in Australia and
encourage timely and effective action to control or eradicate them. It
also will identify `sleeper' weed and feral animal species that survive
in small but dangerous populations. [80]
9.94 The Committee considers that the objectives of the proposal for
inclusion of invasive species are already being met adequately through
the administratively created alert list, the well funded policies and
the successful programs.
Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans
9.95 The Bill continues to provide for the making of recovery plans and
threat abatement plans under clause 267. The Minister may make a recovery
plan for the purposes of the protection, conservation and management of
a listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent or extinct)
or ecological community. [81] A threat abatement
plan may be made for the purposes of reducing the effect of a key threatening
process. [82] The Minister may adopt a plan that has been made
by a State or Territory, with such modifications as considered necessary.
[83]
Conservation Dependent Species
9.96 The Environmental Defender's Office considered that the Bill needed
to provide some management tool for conservation dependent species:
While a recovery plan may not be appropriate for conservation dependent
species … it is clear that both these categories do require some
form of management planning. To merely list these species and communities
with nothing further will serve no practical purpose. Accordingly, the
development of nationally coordinated conservation plans for conservation
dependent species and communities should be required by the Bill. [84]
9.97 The Committee notes the recommendation of the Environmental Defender's
Office but does not agree that nothing practical follows a listing as
conservation dependent. The conservation dependent status assumes that
such species are already the focus of a specific conservation program
that needs to be sustained to prevent the species becoming threatened.
Listing under this category emphasises the need for continued assistance
with conservation programs and the need for monitoring and reporting on
the conservation status of the species. [85]
9.98 Clause 190 provides that the Scientific Committee may advise the
Minister as to any action that is necessary to prevent the species or
community becoming threatened. In turn, the Minister must have regard
to any advice so given in performing any function or exercising any power
under the Bill relevant to the species or community. Thus, the Committee
finds that adequate provision is already made under the Bill for management
of conservation dependent species.
9.99 The Committee did not receive any evidence to justify the addition
of conservation dependent communities and does not consider this status
to be necessary under the Bill.
Plans in Commonwealth Areas Only
9.100 Various submitters recommended that recovery and threat abatement
plans apply beyond Commonwealth areas. [86] If the Commonwealth were to unilaterally apply
its plans to State and Territory areas, this would risk duplication and
uncertainty and would not recognise existing conservation instruments
to protect listed species under State and Territory legislation. [87] The Bill, however, provides for the creation
of joint recovery plans and joint threat abatement plans under clause
267(4). This will ensure that such plans extend beyond Commonwealth areas
in a cooperative and facilitative fashion.
Binding Plans
9.101 The Environmental Defender's Office called for recovery and threat
abatement plans to be made binding on the States:
The Bill requires the Commonwealth to seek the cooperation of the States
in the development of recovery plans and threat abatement plans. This
requirement should be strengthened to ensure that recovery plans and threat
abatement plans are made more effective; they should be binding upon the
States and enforceable by the public. [88]
9.102 Again, the Committee does not see it as appropriate that recovery
and threat abatement plans be made binding on the States and Territories,
given the context that they are developed cooperatively. If a State or
Territory wishes to make a joint recovery plan or a joint threat abatement
plan with the Commonwealth, then the State or Territory is already displaying
its willingness to abide by the plan through its cooperation to enter
one. Such cooperation should not be met with coercive measures.
Scientific Committee Consideration of ESD for Threat Abatement Plans
9.103 The National Farmers' Federation has recommended that a further
element be added to the mandatory considerations when the Scientific Committee
provides the Minister with advice on threat abatement plans under clause
274(3):
NFF recommends that there should be a further point (d) that the Scientific
Committee should consider when giving advice. Given that the new Bill
is endeavouring to enact the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development
(ESD), we believe that this section offers a prime opportunity for consideration
of ESD. Given that most decisions will include environmental, economic,
social and equity issues we recommend that the Scientific Committee should
also take into consideration the principles of ESD when giving advice.
[89]
9.104 The Committee does not see it as the role of the Scientific Committee
to take into account social and economic considerations. Such a role would
potentially politicise the process and would endanger the scientific nature
of the Committee's role. It is for the Minister to make such policy decisions,
pursuant to clause 271(3), under which the Minister has the role of considering
the minimisation of any adverse social and economic impacts consistent
with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
Access to Biological Resources
9.105 The Committee notes that the Bill provides for regulation of access
to biological resources under clause 301. A national approach to the regulation
of access to biological resources is yet to be finalised. [90] In the interim, the Commonwealth seeks to regulate
its own lands and waters until a national approach is developed.
Inadequate Detail
9.106 A number of submissions consider clause 301 to be inadequate and
seek detailed provisions to be laid out in the Bill. [91]
9.107 The Committee acknowledges the concern that there is insufficient
detail in the Bill. The Committee finds, however, that the Bill is very
clear as to the key issues that will be dealt with in the regulations:
- equitable sharing of the benefits arising from use of biological resources
in Commonwealth areas;
- facilitation of access to such resources;
- right to deny access to such resources;
- granting of access to such resources. [92]
9.108 The Committee notes further that the definition of biological resources
encompasses genetic resources, organisms, parts of organisms and any other
biotic component of an ecosystem or potential use or value for humanity.
[93]
9.109 Mr Roger Beale, Secretary of the Department of the Environment
and Heritage, told the Committee that clause 301 aims to create a framework,
to:
ensure that access to these resources can be provided in a way that is
equitable; that, if necessary, access is excluded; and to provide the
terms and conditions under which access may be provided. These will be
spelt out in more detail in the drafting of the regulations of the Bill.
But the objective is to provide a framework that begins to regulate an
area which, in the past, has been very much catch as catch can, but again
emphasising that this relates only to Commonwealth lands. [94]
9.110 The Committee notes that the Government made an election commitment
in October 1998 to introduce the regulations to regulate access to Commonwealth
areas within two years of re-election. [95]
If necessary, these regulations can be adjusted once a national approach
is agreed.
9.111 The Committee finds that the Bill is clear with respect to its
intention to regulate access to biological resources. It is appropriate
that the details of the regulatory scheme for controlling access be fleshed
out in the regulations. This approach has worked well for regulating matters
such as the collection of specimens and the pursuit of research in parks
and reserves for scientific purposes under the National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act 1975 and associated regulations. The Committee does
not see a need for there to be further detail provided within the Bill
itself, as the Bill has already outlined key elements of the regulatory
scheme and the Department of the Environment and Heritage has already
indicated that the regulations will include matters that are relevant
under the Biodiversity Convention.
Indigenous Traditional Knowledge
9.112 Indigenous groups were concerned about the potential for commercial
exploitation of traditional knowledge relating to the conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources. The Kimberley Land Council stated
in its submission that:
The traditional knowledge Indigenous people have of biological resources
is highly valued by pharmaceutical companies for commercial exploitation.
Bio-prospecting is an international business that has a multi-million
dollar potential. This Bill needs to incorporate the National Strategy
for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity actions 1.8.2
in respect to intellectual property rights and royalty payments. [96]
9.113 Many indigenous groups have requested that the Bill give effect
to article 8(j) of the Biodiversity Convention:
ATSIC is concerned that the Government make legislative provision in
the bill specifically recognising and giving effect to Articles 8(j),
10(c) and related provisions in the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity. [97]
9.114 The Committee notes that Article 8(j) provides:
Article 8: Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
(j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the
approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations
and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising
from the utilisation of such knowledge, innovations and practices
9.115 The Committee notes the suggestions made in some submissions seeking
the inclusion of this article within the Bill. The Committee believes
that the Bill already recognises and protects traditional knowledge relating
to biodiversity in very significant ways. For example, joint management
arrangements facilitate equitable and appropriate use of traditional indigenous
knowledge in the management of Commonwealth reserves over indigenous lands.
9.116 To illustrate this, Tjukurpa (Aboriginal Law) is explicitly acknowledged
in the Plan of Management for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. The
current plan of management states that:
Anangu knowledge of ecosystems and animal behaviour, based on both Tjukurpa
and personal experience, was of major importance in the Vertebrate Fauna
Survey completed during the life of the previous Plan. Anangu ecological
knowledge and tracking skills were also essential to the continuing success
of the feasibility study, completed in 1989 (Foulkes and Kerle) which
will eventually provide the background for the reintroduction of Brushtail
Possums into the Park. Anangu fire management knowledge and practices
were incorporated into the mosaic burning strategy for the Park and surrounding
areas.
9.117 The Committee also considers that obligations under Article 8(j)
of the Convention can be implemented within the framework established
by clause 301, where traditional knowledge is employed by persons seeking
access to biological resources in Commonwealth areas. The Committee can
envisage an arrangement where traditional owners in Commonwealth areas
are directly consulted in relation to requests for access to biological
resources which involve indigenous land and knowledge. Such involvement
would be important in ensuring that indigenous interests are protected
and that indigenous people obtain a fair and equitable share of the benefits
arising from the use of the biological resources and traditional knowledge
relating to those resources.
9.118 A possible mechanism for protecting indigenous knowledge may be
to require a person seeking access to biological resources in a Commonwealth
area, involving indigenous land or knowledge, to enter into an agreement
with traditional owners covering equitable sharing of benefits arising
from any use of traditional knowledge, a condition of granting access.
Benefit sharing arrangements could cover royalty payments and a range
of other benefits.
9.119 The above approach would meet objective 1.8.2 of the National Biodiversity
Strategy.
Recommendation 22
The Committee recommends that the Minister consider including in regulations
made under clause 301, a mechanism to provide for appropriate consultation
with the traditional owners where a person seeks access to biological
resources in a Commonwealth area, involving indigenous land or knowledge.
Conservation Agreements
9.120 The Committee sees great value in the Bill's provision for conservation
agreements. They present a flexible, voluntary tool for promoting the
conservation of biodiversity, especially on private, non-reserve lands:
These provisions have been included to help voluntary actions towards
conservation of our biodiversity. More broadly, the Bill provides a substantially
improved legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's
biodiversity to complement the programs under the Natural Heritage Trust.
[98]
9.121 The Committee notes that the current Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992 makes provision for conservation agreements but that these
only apply to Commonwealth areas. [99]
9.122 Under conservation agreements, areas are to be managed in a manner
agreed between the Commonwealth and the party in charge of the area to
enhance the conservation of biodiversity. Importantly, the Commonwealth
may provide financial or other assistance to help the person conserve
the biodiversity on that land. They will serve as a very significant biodiversity
conservation mechanism, enabling the Commonwealth to assist landholders
who display a willingness to protect and conserve biodiversity.
9.123 The Committee notes that, aside from the particular concerns discussed
below, there is considerable support for the idea of conservation agreements
at the Commonwealth level. The Environmental Defender's Office stated
that conservation agreements `can be a powerful tool to encourage good
environmental outcomes on private land'. [100] Other submissions and witnesses also indicated
support for conservation agreements:
Owners of private land manage a significant proportion of Australia's
biological diversity. Positive incentives entered into voluntarily by
land holders to conserve biodiversity, such as conservation agreements
are supported by NFF. [101]
Potential for Avoidance of Commonwealth Approvals
9.124 The major concern raised by many witnesses relates to clause 306(1)(f),
whereby the conservation agreement can declare that a specified action
taken in a specified manner or in other specified circumstances does not
require Commonwealth environmental approval under Part 9:
This is undesirable and unnecessary. Encouraging biodiversity conservation
on private land is one thing. However, it is inappropriate to provide
people with the incentive of an exemption from environmental laws. …
The exemption is particularly problematic because the Bill appears to
allow the Minister to trade off biodiversity values against other environmental
values (such as, for example, scenic values) when entering into conservation
agreements – and this trade-off, where it affects matters of national
environmental significance, will not need approval under Part 9. [102]
9.125 While the Committee notes that clause 306(f) may enable the Minister
to specify that actions are exempt from Commonwealth environment assessment
approval, the Committee does not agree that conservation agreements will
be used to avoid environmental impact assessment. Clause 306(1)(f), which
is provided as one of the possible elements of the contents of a conservation
agreement, only excludes environmental impact assessment when the Minister
declares that an action does not need approval under Chapter 4 and the
action will be undertaken in a specified manner.
9.126 The Minister is subject to strict safeguards in entering a conservation
agreement and must therefore bear this in mind when specifying such an
exemption. The Minister cannot enter a conservation agreement unless satisfied
that the agreement will result in a net benefit to the conservation of
biodiversity and that the agreement is not inconsistent with a recovery,
threat abatement or wildlife conservation plan.
9.127 Any activities undertaken by a person party to a conservation agreement
that exempted the assessment and approval process would have to be undertaken
in accordance with the provisions of the conservation agreement. Since
the purpose of the agreement is to enhance biodiversity conservation,
the provisions regulating the action will be in harmony with that end.
Importantly, the Committee emphasises that the Explanatory Memorandum
provides that an agreement that has the primary purpose of facilitating
a development is not a conservation agreement. [103]
9.128 Thus, the Committee considers that clause 306(1)(f) could only
be activated in a conservation agreement where the Minister is certain
that this would not result in a diminution to the conservation of biodiversity
and was not inconsistent with any plans. As such, the Committee does not
consider that the conservation agreement will be used to avoid the application
of Commonwealth environment laws.
Public Involvement in Conservation Agreements and the Potential for
Secrecy
9.129 Another concern elaborated was the fact that there is no provision
for public involvement in the development of such agreements and that
the exemption from publication provided creates a potential for secrecy.
[104] Many submissions suggest that there is a need
for draft conservation agreements to be made available for public comment.
[105]
9.130 The Committee acknowledges the concerns about the potential for
secrecy but does not find this concern warranted. The Committee has already
pointed out the stringent requirements on the Minister when entering a
conservation agreement.
9.131 The Committee does not think that it would be appropriate to make
conservation agreements subject to public scrutiny. To do so may discourage
landholders from entering them in the first place. Signing such an agreement
involves an assumption of obligation on behalf of the landholder that
they would not previously have made. [106]
In many instances, the public would not have had access to the land over
which an agreement is settled anyway. Ultimately, the agreement is a direct
private agreement between the parties who have signed it.
9.132 The ability not to disclose a conservation agreement or parts of
it is consistent with the reality that disclosure may cause harm to the
components of biodiversity sought to be protected. There will be a genuine
need on some occasions to protect the identity of a species or its location,
where publicising its whereabouts might engender harm or threat to its
survival. Such cases as the Wollemi Pine (NSW) and the Spotted Handfish
(Tasmania) provide examples of species that could not be disclosed as
the need to protect the surviving species outweighed the interests of
people who might wish to sightsee or harvest them. [107]
9.133 The commercial-in-confidence provision is also appropriate given
that conservation agreements will not be made for the purpose of facilitating
development and the primary purpose must be to enhance biodiversity conservation.
9.134 The Committee notes that in most cases, the public will have access
to copies of conservation agreements and the Minister is under an obligation
to maintain an up-to-date list of conservation agreements that are in
force. This includes taking all reasonable steps to ensure that copies
of the list are available for purchase at a reasonable price. [108]
Public Areas
9.135 In addition, submissions reveal a concern that conservation agreements
will result in the loss of public areas. Kuranda EnviroCare Inc was concerned
that the agreements might result in the `privatisation' of Australia's
`communal environmental assets'. [109] The
Environmental Defender's Office stated that provision for conservation
agreements under the Bill:
appears to open up the possibility of agreements with private individuals
or corporations for the management of important public areas, which is
of great concern in the context of the exemption and secrecy provisions
described above (although it may be that the Bill was not intended to
have this effect; the objects of the Bill refer merely to `conservation
agreements with land-holders'.) [110]
9.136 The Committee does not agree that conservation agreements provide
a potential for handing over the management of public areas to individuals
or corporations. As noted above, the Bill provides strict safeguards that
must be met by the Minister before entering into a conservation agreement.
Additionally, the primary purpose of a conservation agreement must be
to enhance the conservation of biodiversity. It cannot have a main purpose
of facilitating development. The Committee does not consider that the
Government has any intention of using conservation agreements to hand
over the management of important area of public land to individuals or
corporations.
Accreditation of Non-government organisations
9.137 Mr James Pittock of the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, suggested
that non-government organisations should be accredited to `negotiate and
deliver conservation agreements on behalf of the Commonwealth. There is
already a similar precedent in terms of the Trust for Nature organisation
in Victoria.' [111]
9.138 As already noted, the concept of conservation agreements under
this Bill is to provide for an agreement between the Commonwealth and
a landholder. The Committee does not think that it would be appropriate,
therefore, for the Commonwealth to delegate away this responsibility.
The Committee does think, however, that there is no reason why a non-government
organisation could not provide assistance to landholders preparing for,
entering and carrying out such an agreement, should the landholder acquiesce
to such assistance. Moreover, non-government organisations with an interest
in holding land for conservation purposes could also enter into a conservation
agreement over land which they may hold.
Indigenous People and Conservation Agreements
9.139 Mr Greg McIntyre, Advocate for the Kimberley Land Council, told
the Committee that conservation agreements needed to involve Aboriginal
people:
in relation to the reaching of conservation agreements where indigenous
people and their representatives have a very significant input –
and that certainly applies very much in the Kimberley and in the Northern
Territory – there is no statutory procedure which ensures that representatives
of Aboriginal people are involved in the development of those conservation
agreements. Now that in a sense is inconsistent with the amendments of
the Native Title Act which set up specific provisions about the
entering into indigenous land use agreements based on the advocacy of
Aboriginal Land Councils in the idea of regional agreements in the regions
where they are prominently involved and the indigenous population comprises
a highly significant part of that population. [112]
9.140 The Committee notes the interest expressed for the involvement
of indigenous groups in conservation agreements. Indigenous peoples can
take advantage of entering a conservation agreement should they wish to
do so. Conservation agreements are not regional agreements, they concern
only the land over which the landholder seeking such an agreement has
an interest.
State and Territory Environmental and Approvals Laws
9.141 State and Territory Government and industry submissions raised
a concern that conservation agreements could be used to override State
and Territory environmental and approvals laws:
This bypasses State/Territory control and responsibility for land management.
The absence of consultation potentially allows for actions contrary to
State or Territory law or planning and other processes. A more effective
means of dealing with this excellent proposal would be for the section
to be focused upon Commonwealth lands and waters, with the potential for
States/Territories to enter into such agreements under the terms of a
bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth. [113]
9.142 The Committee acknowledges the concern raised but does not consider
that it is substantiated. Conservation agreements are not intended to
be used to override State or Territory legislation or powers. They are
not intended to usurp the role of States and Territories in land and resource
management activities. Clause 311 ensures that where a provision of a
conservation agreement is inconsistent with a State or Territory law,
it will be considered to have no effect. Clause 311 enables the provision
to stand only if both it and the law are capable of being complied with
simultaneously.
9.143 The Committee does not consider that it would be beneficial for
the Commonwealth to focus only on Commonwealth areas as this would not
result in many private individuals or organisations being offered the
opportunity to enter agreements for the enhancement of the conservation
of biodiversity.
Adoption of State Government Conservation Agreements
9.144 The Government of South Australia recommended that conservation
agreements made under State legislation should be capable of being adopted
under this Bill. [114]
9.145 The Committee cannot see what advantage would arise from adopting
State conservation agreements under this Bill. Conservation agreements
are specifically created under this Bill to advance the objectives of
biodiversity conservation, objectives that will not necessarily align
with the reasons for the creation of conservation agreements under State
legislation.
Third Party Enforceability
9.146 Professor Janet McDonald suggested that conservation agreements
should be made enforceable by third parties:
Breaching a conservation agreement is not a criminal offence. The only
significant enforcement provision permits the granting of an injunction
to prevent the offending conduct (cl 476). Currently, only another party
to the agreement may seek an injunction (cl 476(1)). This enforcement
regime will be meaningless unless injunctive rights are extended to third
parties. [115]
9.147 The Committee does not think that it would be appropriate to provide
for third party enforcement of conservation agreements. The purpose of
the agreements is to encourage voluntary conservation on the behalf of
a landholder. It would not be beneficial to coerce a landholder with a
threat of third party intervention when they have clearly demonstrated
a willingness to conserve biodiversity in the first place by entering
the agreement and then agreeing to be bound to the primary object of enhancing
the conservation of biodiversity.
9.148 The Bill provides that conservation agreements are legally binding
under clause 307 and as such, are enforceable by the parties to it to
enforce the terms. The powers of injunction can also be invoked to prevent
a breach of the agreement. [116]
9.149 It remains open to any member of the community to draw to the Minister's
attention any concerns about the way that a conservation agreement is
being carried out and the Minister has the ability to vary or terminate
the agreement under clause 308(4).
Legislative Inclusion of the National Biodiversity Strategy and the
Convention on Biological Diversity
9.150 The National Biodiversity Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's
Biodiversity was developed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment
and Conservation Council (ANZECC). It was endorsed by all State governments
and the Commonwealth Government in early 1996. The principal goal of the
Strategy is to `protect biological diversity and maintain ecological processes
systems.'
9.151 Numerous submissions make the complaint that the Strategy has not
been formally included in the Bill. [117]
9.152 The Committee interprets this concern as a suggestion that the
Strategy should be formally legislated. The Committee does not consider
that a strategy document such as this is capable of being legislated for,
since it is a document that sets out the goals, principles, objectives
and actions for biodiversity conservation. On the other hand, legislation
is concerned with delivery mechanisms and achievement of outcomes.
9.153 The Committee recognises the importance of the National Strategy
as a guidance and priority setting tool. The Committee also notes that
relevant aspects of the Strategy have been drawn upon in the creation
of this Bill. [118]
9.154 It would be neither appropriate nor feasible to endeavour to legislate
the Strategy itself. Parts of the Strategy have been provided for within
the Bill. For example, the objective of establishing a Biological Diversity
Advisory Council under Action 7.2.2 is furthered by the Bill's statutory
embodiment of the Council and Objective 1.2 is responded to by the legislating
of provisions for the creation of bioregional plans. [119]
9.155 The remainder of the Strategy serves as an important complement
to the Bill in the area of biodiversity conservation, serving to guide
the implementation and review of practical and policy measures such as
programs and action targets.
9.156 Several submissions were concerned that the Biodiversity Convention
had not been given adequate legislative basis under the Bill. [120]
9.157 As with the Strategy, the Committee considers that it is not appropriate
for the whole Convention to be implemented by legislation. The Biodiversity
Convention itself recognises that a multidisciplinary approach is required
for successful conservation of biodiversity and that legislation forms
only one part of that approach. It is not possible to fully implement
the Convention through legislative measures alone.
9.158 The full implementation of the Biodiversity Convention is achieved
through a mix of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation, policies,
strategies, plans and programs. Key elements of the Convention have been
implemented in the Bill, such as the identification and monitoring of
components of biodiversity, promoting the recovery of threatened species,
establishing a system of protected areas and regulating access to biological
resources.
Footnotes
[1] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister for
the Environment, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation: Consultation
Paper, February 1998, p 19.
[2] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister for
the Environment, Senate Hansard, 2 July 1998, p 4797; Explanatory
Memorandum, p 11.
[3] For example, Humane Society International,
Submission 554, p 24; Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15,
p 27.
[4] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 27.
[5] Humane Society International, Submission
554, p 23; Biological Diversity Advisory Council, Submission 620, p 3;
Dr Judy West, Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Proof Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 148.
[6] Dr Judy West, Centre for Plant Biodiversity
Research, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 148.
[7] Australian Biological Resources Study, at
, p 1 of 2.
[8] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 28.
[9] Department of the Environment and Heritage,
Environmental Resources Information Network, .
[10] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation:
Consultation Paper, February 1998, p 22.
[11] The National Strategy for the Conservation
of Australia's Biological Diversity, pp 8-9.
[12] For example, Association of Mining and
Exploration Companies, Submission 436, p 27; Woodside Energy Ltd, Submission
504, p 11; Government of Norfolk Island, Submission 474, p 15.
[13] `A bioregion is an area of one whole or
several interconnected ecosystems characterised by its landforms, vegetative
cover, human culture, and history. In determining the boundaries of a
bioregion account will be taken of administrative and other regional boundaries.
A bioregional plan provides a `blueprint' for the ecologically sustainable
management of natural resources within a bioregion, taking into account
social and geographic elements.' Explanatory Memorandum, pp 61-62.
[14] See section 15AB(2)(e) of the Acts
Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).
[15] For example, Environmental Defender's
Office, Submission 15, p 29; Humane Society International, Submission
554, pp 27-28; Biological Diversity Advisory Council, Submission 620,
p 3.
[16] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation:
Consultation Paper, February 1998, p 22.
[17] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 29. Also, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, Submission
436, p 27.
[18] Minerals Council of Australia, Submission
335, p 25.
[19] Woodside Energy, Submission 504, p 11.
[20] Clause 178(1); also, IUCN Red List
Categories, .
[21] Clause 184 is equivalent to section 18(3)
of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.
[22] Government of South Australia, Submission
523, p 16; Mr John Scanlon, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal
Affairs (SA), Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999,
p 186; Government of Western Australia, Submission 241, p 1; Government
of the Northern Territory, Submission 613, p 8; Australian and New Zealand
Minerals and Energy Council, Submission 545, p 22.
[23] Clauses 184(2) and 189.
[24] Clause 188(5).
[25] Humane Society International, Submission
554, p 29. Also, Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 31;
Ms Nicola Beynon, Humane Society International, Proof Committee Hansard,
Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 93; Ms Janet Oliver, Wildlife Preservation
Society of Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 28 August
1998, p 287.
[26] IUCN Red List Categories, .
[27] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation:
Consultation Paper, February 1998, p 29.
[28] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 33. Also, Humane Society International, Submission 554, p 32.
[29] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 32. Also, Humane Society International, Submission 554, p 33; Launceston
Environment Centre, Submission 361, p 6.
[30] Department of the Environment and Heritage,
supplementary information, 1 April 1999, Attachment D, p 10.
[31] Humane Society International, Submission
554, pp 30-31.
[32] `Population' is defined under clause 527
as the occurrence of the species or community in a particular area.
[33] TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 8.
[34] Clauses 179 and 182.
[35] Clause 188(3) - current key threatening
processes listed under the Endangered Species Protection Act include predation
by feral cats, land degradation caused by rabbits and incidental take
of seabirds by long-line fishing.
[36] Clause 188(1) – eligibility for listing
is determined if the threatening process could cause a native species
or an ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category
other than conservation dependent; or could cause a listed threatened
species or a listed ecological community to become eligible to be listed
in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment; or adversely
affects two or more listed threatened species (other than conservation
dependent) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities.
[37] Clause 188(4).
[38] Blue Mountains Conservation Society, Submission
250, p 2; Otway Planning Association, Submission 502, p 3; Environmental
Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 33; The Coastwatchers Association
Inc, Submission 24, p 6.
[39] Otway Planning Association, Submission
502, p 3.
[40] Clause 191(1).
[41] TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 8.
Also, Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 35.
[42] Western Australian Fishing Industry Council
Inc, Submission 625, p 3. Also, South Australian Fishing Industry Council
Inc, Submission 622, p 8; Australian Seafood Industry Council, Submission
154, p 4.
[43] Dr N Keith Boardman, Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992: 1998 Review, 1998, p 12.
[44] Summary of Recommendations and Government's
Preliminary Response, p 3.
[45] Clause 191(6).
[46] TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 8;
Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 35.
[47] Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995 (NSW), section 21(2).
[48] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 35.
[49] Clause 192; this is similar to the provisional
listing protection provided for under the New South Wales Threatened
Species Protection Act 1995.
[50] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, pp 27-28. Also, Humane Society International Inc, Submission 554,
p 6.
[51] Mr James Johnson, Environmental Defender's
Office, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 81.
Also, Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 30; Ms Jane Holden,
TRAFFIC Oceania, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999,
p 90; The Coastwatchers Association Inc, Submission 24; Animals Australia,
Submission 384, p 4.
[52] Mr James Johnson, Environmental Defender's
Office, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 81.
[53] National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW); Nature Conservation
Act 1980 (ACT); Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977
(NT); Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD); National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1972 (SA); National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (Tas);
Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic) and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
(Vic); and the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA).
[54] Clause 267(2) and (4) and clause 285(3)
and (5).
[55] Conservation of Australian Species
and Ecological Communities Threatened with Extinction at and the Endangered
Species Program at .
[56] Mr Michael Kennedy, Humane Society International,
Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 91. Also, Humane
Society International, Submission 554, p 1; Environmental Defender's Office,
Submission 15, p 31; Biological Diversity Advisory Council, Submission
620, p 4.
[57] G Bates, Environmental Law in Australia,
p 318.
[58] Ms Carole de Fraga, Animals Australia,
Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 March 1999, p 298. Also,
Animals Australia, Submission 384, p 6; Project Jonah, Submission 63,
p 2 ff.
[59] See Butterworths, Halsbury's Laws of
Australia, Animals, (8), `Protection of Animals From Cruelty'.
[60] Clause 196, clause 211, clauses 229-230,
clause 254.
[61] These are: that the specified action will
contribute significantly to the conservation of the species or community;
that the impact of the action on a member of a listed species or community
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the taking of the action (and
will not adversely affect the conservation status of the species or population,
is not inconsistent with a relevant plan and the permit holder will take
all reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the action on the species);
that the specified action is of particular significance to indigenous
tradition; or that the specified action is needed to control pathogens.
See clauses 201, 216, 238 (includes whale watching carried on in accordance
with the regulations), 258.
[62] For example, clause 197.
[63] TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 9.
[64] Clause 224.
[65] Mr Peter Cochrane, Australian Petroleum
Production and Exploration Association Ltd, Proof Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 101.
[66] Clause 225(1); also Senator the Hon Robert
Hill, Media Release, Australia Won't Go To Water on Whales – Hill,
15 May 1998, p 1; Coalition Policy Document, Our Living Heritage,
1998, p 44.
[67] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 44.
[68] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Senate Hansard, 2 July 1998, p 4798.
[69] This is known as the nationality principle.
[70] Project Jonah, Submission 63, p 6. Also,
Mrs Henrietta Kaye, Project Jonah, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
18 March 1999, p 296; Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 38.
[71] Ms Henrietta Kaye, Project Jonah, Proof
Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 March 1999, p 296.
[72] Minerals Council of Australia, Submission
335, p 26. Also, Woodside Energy, Submission 504, p 11.
[73] South Australian Fishing Industry Council,
Submission 622, p 7. Also, Mr Guy Leyland, Western Australian Fishing
Council, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 26 February 1999, p 84;
Australian Seafood Industry Council, Submission 154, p 5.
[74] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 21.
[75] The EDO and WWF suggest three classes:
one class would consist of species not currently found in Australia but
would pose a significant threat to the environment if they were introduced;
a second class would contain species found in Australia that pose a significant
threat to the environment but can be controlled; and a third class would
consist of species that are here but cannot be reasonably controlled:
Environmental Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 37; Mr James Pittock,
World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Proof Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 131; World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Submission
275; Mr Larry O'Loughlin, Australian Conservation Foundation, Proof
Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 March 1999, p 287.
[76] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
4 March 1999, p 131. Also, Mr Nicholas Newland, Foundation for a Rabbit
Free Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999,
p 238.
[77] The Natural Heritage Trust has contributed
$16 million to the Feral Animal Control Program and $24 million to
the National Weeds Program.
[78] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 31.
[79] Quarantine Amendment Act 1998,
Schedule 1, item 86.
[80] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 30.
[81] Clause 267(1)(a).
[82] Clause 267(1)(b).
[83] Clause 267(2).
[84] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 37.
[85] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation:
Consultation Paper, February 1998, p 29.
[86] For example, Launceston Environment Centre,
Submission 361, p 6; The Coastwatchers Association Inc Submission 24,
p 6.
[87] For example, the Victorian Flora and
Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 provides for the preparation of a flora and
fauna guarantee strategy under section 17 and action statements for listed
species of flora and fauna and potentially threatening processes under
section 19. The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995 provides for the preparation and implementation of recovery plans
under Part 4, Divisions 1 and 2, and threat abatement plans under Part
5, divisions 1 and 2.
[88] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 37.
[89] National Farmers' Federation, Submission
530, p 6.
[90] A Commonwealth-State working group on
access to biological resources was established in 1994 to investigate
and report on action required to develop a national approach to access
Australia's biological resources. The Working Group released a discussion
paper on Managing Access to Australia's Biological Resources in October
1997 and sought comments by April 1998.
[91] The Coastwatchers Association Inc. Submission
24, pp 6-7; TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 11; Environmental
Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 39; Dr Judy West, Centre for Plant
Biodiversity Research, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March
1999, p 149; Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 335, p 26;
Woodside Energy Ltd, Submission 504, p 12.
[92] Clause 301(2); also, Mr Wayne Fletcher,
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 162.
[93] Clause 528.
[94] Mr Roger Beale, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 162.
[95] Coalition Policy Document, Our Living
Heritage, 1998, p 35.
[96] Kimberley Land Council, Submission 600,
p 4. Also, Central Land Council, Submission 595, p 5.
[97] ATSIC, Submission 276, pp 2-3. Also, Mr
Greg McIntyre, Kimberley Land Council, Proof Committee Hansard,
Perth, 26 February 1999, p 79; Professor Stephan Schnierer, College
of Indigenous Australian Peoples, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney,
4 February 1999, p 108.
[98] Mr Roger Beale, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 161.
[99] Endangered Species Protection Act 1992,
Sections 50-55.
[100] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 40. Also, Mr Michael Krockenberger, Australian Conservation Foundation,
Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 March 1999, p 281; Environmental
Defender's Office (QLD) Inc, Submission 99A, p 11; Maroochy Shire Council,
Submission 594, p 2; Mr Andrew Macintosh, Submission 327, p 2.
[101] National Farmers' Federation, Submission
530, p 7. Also, Mr James Pittock, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia,
Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 132; National
Council of Women of Australia Inc Ltd, Submission 355, p 5.
[102] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 40. Also, Otway Planning Association Inc, Submission 502, p 3; Blue
Mountains Conservation Society, Submission 250, p 2; Launceston Environment
Centre, Submission 361, p 5; North Coast Environment Council Inc, Submission
13, p 2; Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Capricorn Branch
Inc, Submission 55, p 2; Albury Wodonga Environment Centre, Submission
528, p 1; Dr Peter Snider, Submission 106, p 4.
[103] Explanatory Memorandum, p 85.
[104] For example, Otway Planning Association
Inc, Submission 502, p 3; The Coastwatchers Association Inc, Submission
24, p 5; TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 11; Dr Christobel Mattingley,
Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999, p 237; Environmental
Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 41.
[105] For example, Queensland Conservation
Council, Submission 14, p 5; TRAFFIC Oceania, Submission 565, p 11.
[106] Mr Roger Beale, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 181.
[107] For further information on the Spotted
Handfish, see The Fish That Walks, Quantum, 11 March 1999 at ;
also, Mr Howard Bamsey, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Proof
Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999, p 180.
[108] Clauses 309 and 310.
[109] Kuranda EnviroCare Inc, Submission 549,
p 1.
[110] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 41.
[111] Mr James Pittock, World Wide Fund for
Nature Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 132.
[112] Mr Greg McIntyre, Kimberley Land Council,
Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 26 February 1999, p 80. Also, Ms
Alison Worsnop, Northern Land Council, Proof Committee Hansard,
Darwin, 17 March 1999, p 259.
[113] Government of the Northern Territory,
Submission 613, p 10. Also, National Farmers' Federation Submission 530,
p 7; Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Inc Submission 436,
p 29; The Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council (ANZMEC),
Submission 545, p 23; Woodside Energy Ltd, Submission 504, p 12; Minerals
Council of Australia, Submission 335, p 27.
[114] Government of South Australia, Submission
523, p 16, suggesting such examples as the conservation agreements made
under the South Australian Development Act and Native Vegetation Act.
[115] Associate Professor Janet McDonald,
Submission 152, p 6. Also, Australian Conservation Foundation Gold Coast
Inc, Submission 156, p 4.
[116] Clause 476.
[117] For example, North Coast Environment
Council, Submission 13, p 3; Canberra and South East Region Environment
Centre, Submission 295, p 2; Mr Peter Sims OAM, Submission 253, p 3; Dr
Richard Donaghey, Submission 519, p 2; Dr Judy West, Centre for Plant
Biodiversity Research, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March
1999, p 148; Professor Stephan Schnierer, Submission 153, p 12.
[118] `The Act will also provide legislative
support for the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's
Biological Diversity', Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment,
Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation:Consultation Paper,
February 1998, p 20.
[119] Objective 7.2, Action 7.2.2; Objective
1.2, The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological
Diversity, pp 43, 8.
[120] For example, Ms Nicola Beynon, Humane
Society International, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February
1999, p 88; Canberra and South East Environment Centre, Submission
295, p 2; College of Indigenous Australian Peoples, Submission 103, p
2.
Top
|