Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge and thank the member for bringing on this motion. We wholeheartedly support this motion and I will come back to it, but I express my disappointment at the contribution there by the member for Braddon. It seems the Tasmanian Government is just keen to throw up as many barriers, hurdles and excuses as possible.
I acknowledge the member’s passion and personal knowledge and representation of this issue and also the way you have bought this motion forward and the information you have provided us in terms of consideration. You have asked numerous questions of the Premier and others about this and it is clear that your commitment to this nomination is real. I thank you for that.
There is nothing to fear here. Tasmania, and indeed Australia sometimes has this nonsensical fear and apprehension when it comes to these kinds of international treaties and recognitions.
In a different role I have been involved with at the World Heritage Committee level, where I observed as a civil society observer, I saw a complete contradiction between the way Australia and the Tasmanian government engaged in process compared to other countries. Other countries were absolutely champing at the bit to have their properties recognised as of World Heritage significance, because they know that delivers status. It delivers an attraction from a tourism perspective and it delivers additional funding and support.
Here in Australia, it seems that we treat these issues as a significant threat and everything possible is done to throw up barriers and to obscure and obfuscate when it comes to delivering on these outcomes. I directly saw the former Abbott federal government actively try to delist parts of Tasmania’s World Heritage area. An utterly, utterly nonsensical approach and completely contradicts the way other countries engage in it. What I have just heard from the contribution from the minister is an example of Tasmania doing exactly the same thing.
The member noted that we have 65 Ramsar sites in Australia. We have 10 in Tasmania, including Moulting Lagoon, Pitt Water ‑ Orielton and Cape Barren. I have personal experience growing up around Pitt Water and Orielton, rambling around that shoreline watching birds, and also, more recently, on Cape Barren Island, working with the Aboriginal owners of Cape Barren with their absolute commitment to the lagoons on the eastern side of Cape Barren Island.
No sites have been added to our list for 40 years. Our 10 were delivered over 40 years ago and we have not had a single addition to our Ramsar list since. I think that is an indictment on successive governments because the Robbins Passage‑Boullanger Bay opportunity has been writ large for us for many years now. As referenced previously, there was a nomination process in train that was halted by the Bacon government in 2001. The time is now for this nomination. The time is well and truly overdue for this place to be recognised because it is so significant.
It is a bit over 22,000 ha of wetland, and part of an Aboriginal cultural landscape. While not a direct criterion of Ramsar, I note the millennia‑long Aboriginal engagement with this as a cultural landscape. Robbins Island was a place of gathering and celebration, of harvest and significant productivity areas. The Aboriginal connection to this area and their commitment to having it properly protected and respected as a cultural landscape is not diminished today. They are actively engaged in campaigns to protect this area and have made submissions as such.
The area has 7500 ha of seagrass. The member for Braddon outlined the incredible value of seagrass from a climate and habitat perspective. The salt marshes are a threatened ecological community. There are nine plant species threatened at the state or national level. It is the most important habitat area for shorebirds. There are 23,000 birds known to come to that area every single year. This includes eight species, of which five are migratory and three resident, some of the most incredible birds in the world.
The numbers and species of shorebirds are declining globally. The protection of habitat is an incredibly important mechanism to maintain the populations of these kind of birds. Shorebirds, as well as this area, have been described as coastal canaries. BirdLife Tasmania describes them as coastal canaries because they are a signal of ecosystem health. Tasmania is an indication of global population trends, and it is not looking good. Globally, numbers are down, as are numbers in Tasmania. The East Asian‑Australasian Flyway is incredibly significant as well. This is the remarkable thing about this patch of wetland. It is an incredibly important part of the world for habitat for these species.
These species fly some 20,000 km every year in both directions, that is, a total of 40,000 km, with non-stop flights of up to 13,000 km. Imagine that: a bird you can hold in your hand, a tiny bird, flying 13,000 km non‑stop. It is an incredible feat of nature – not only the physical feat, but how about the navigation feat? Some people think animals such as this do not possess a level of intelligence equal to two hours, but how would one of us go navigating 13,000 km, from the top of the world to literally the bottom? It is a remarkable feat.
Half of the world’s population lives under the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, that is, 2 billion people. That is why this is a significant issue. This is important habitat for these birds when they are, at times, losing it in other parts of the world because of the pressure on them.
The process has progressed significantly already. As the member stated, the Cradle Coast Authority is progressing this. It had been progressed significantly already, before being dropped by the Bacon government. Work is being progressed by BirdLife Tasmania, the Cradle Coast Authority, the University of Tasmania and, as mentioned, in August 2022 there was explicit support from the Circular Head Council.
This motion is really clear and there is nothing to fear here. All it is looking for is support from the Tasmanian government as landowner, the landowner consent for a nomination to proceed, and for them to get the nomination process going. None of the barriers the minister threw up in his contribution should stop the government triggering the nomination process and getting on with it.
It has significant support from organisations. I will read from a couple of those organisations because it is important. BirdLife Tasmania wrote to the premier and the federal minister Sussan Ley in March 2022 and said:
I write to urge you to immediately initiate the process to include the Robbins Passage-Boullanger Bay wetlands in north west Tasmania in the list of wetlands of international importance kept under article 2 of the Ramsar convention. There is no doubt that the Robbins Passage-Boullanger Bay wetlands make an internationally significant contribution to the conservation of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian Australasian Flyway. Recognition and protection of the wetlands is long overdue. These wetlands currently meet seven of the nine criteria for Ramsar listing, meeting criteria 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. They also likely meet criterion 5 should water fowl be properly included in surveys of wetlands.
Coordinated surveys by BirdLife Tasmania in February this year recorded in excess of 12,000 resident and migratory shorebirds, of which three species are listed as critically endangered: the far eastern curlew, the great knot and the curlew sandpiper; and one is endangered, the red knot, under the EPBC Act.
Dr Vishnu Prahalad of the University of Tasmania and Dr Eric Woehler, the former convener of BirdLife Tasmania, writes:
Tasmania has 10 Ramsar-listed sites but, despite growing global and national awareness of the environmental values of wetlands, and the community opportunities arising from their conservation, no wetland in Tasmania has been added into the list for 40 years. Over this time, scientific knowledge of the globally important values of the Boullanger Bay-Robbins Passage system has grown extensively and support has broadened among the north west community.
Honourable Speaker, it is clear that there is stakeholder support. As mentioned, the Circular Head Council also agreed to support a nomination. It resolved:
That the council agrees to write a letter of support for the nomination of the Robbins Passage-Boullanger Bay wetlands area of the municipality for inclusion on the Ramsar list of wetlands of international significance and it authorises the general manager to work with the nominating parties to compile and lodge the nomination documentation.
That is the Circular Head Council, which is not necessarily known for its overt support for these kinds of processes and conservation in general. We welcome those kinds of commitments to this nomination. It is not only because of the significant values of the birds and the area, but there are massive benefits. The Circular Head Council’s briefing on its resolution identifies the benefits of the Ramsar listing to include:
Enhance tourism interests and opportunities across the municipality; an additional source of funding for activities that improve and protect the ecological character of the wetlands; and improved branding for companies that border the site.
This is an initiative in Tasmania’s interest. It will build our brand, and neighbouring landowners and others can leverage brand advantage from this kind of nomination and recognition. It also provides funding pathways. It provides opportunities for Tasmania to get additional money to manage this properly, to manage its important environmental and social values. It is really significant in that context.
When it comes to management, BirdLife Tasmania identified that it is important to manage this area as a whole and as one, as opposed to a series of sites. They explicitly say that when it comes to the management of Robbins Passage-Boullanger Bay, any and all management efforts regarding shore birds in Robbins Passage-Boullanger Bay must consider the whole area as a single system. They cannot and must not think that one site is more important than another or that it is possible to lose or sacrifice one site because there are other sites. The area functions because the network of sites allows birds to move around, forage and roost under different tide, wind or weather conditions, and the loss of any one site can potentially destroy the integrity of the entire system.
A Ramsar listing would allow government to develop a holistic management plan for the entire 22,000 hectares, to apply for additional funding streams to help manage it, and to make sure that it is managed on a holistic basis.
From the Greens’ perspective, this is all upside. There is no downside on a Ramsar listing. It gives you funding; it gives you recognition; it gives you coordination. A significant amount of community consultation has already been undertaken.
I acknowledge that clearly there is significant concern around Robbins Island as a location for a wind farm and industry, and concern that it is the worst possible place for the kind of industrial development that is proposed there, but I want to make clear that this nomination is completely separate to that. This applies to the area below the high watermark only. It does not include terrestrial titles, and so while the wind farm issue on Robbins Island will indeed play out over the coming years and I am sure will occupy plenty of debate time in this House, it is not a relevant consideration when it comes to this nomination.
The minister is aware of this work. A lot of work has been done. I am not sure that until the last moment there we were completely clear on the government’s position around this nomination opportunity and indeed, its position on it going forward. I note with concern – given the contrast to other matters – its deep and un-abiding commitment to consultation when it comes to this nomination. It seems that every single landowner that has any level of connection by way of a shared boundary to the high tide mark needs to consent to this development.
That can be clearly contrasted with the government’s attitude towards consultation when it comes to a stadium at Macquarie Point, for example, where not even Cabinet or Treasury was consulted, or to a review of kunanyi/Mount Wellington, where a couple of phone calls were made the day before it was announced. We are seeing a complete contradiction when it comes to this government’s commitment to consultation and exactly what that means.
From the Greens’ perspective, we will support this motion. The motion notes significant matters that cannot be disputed. Robbins Passage is a significant area. The motion acknowledges that a significant amount of work is being done and has been done already, and that requests have been made to the government. It calls on the government to provide written in‑principal support as the landowner.
The government is the landowner for this nomination. Let us not allow the minister to create any confusion there. This is for a marine wetland. It does not include any landowner other than the Tasmanian government. The motion calls on the Tasmanian government to progress this nomination, to proceed and to hit the go button.
All of those barriers that the minister threw up there can be dealt with as part of the process as we go forward. None of them are a block to the government supporting this motion, pressing the go button on this nomination process, and supporting the Cradle Coast Authority and the other organisations to actually get on with the job.
This is an entirely non‑controversial motion. It is eminently supportable. I thank the member again for bringing it on and we will certainly be supporting it when it comes to the vote.
