Mr BAYLEY – Minister, the government’s committed $2 million a year over four years to threatened species. With 680 threatened species in Tasmania, that works out at just under $3000 a year per species. Reports and recovery plans identify policy decisions that can make a real difference. My question is about policy.
The Swift Parrot Recovery Plan, for example, has an action that is to identify and protect remnants of state-owned land in areas of habitat critical survival for swift parrots. The State of the Environment report that was released just last week had Recommendation 10, which says:
The Commission recommends the Tasmanian government expand Tasmania’s terrestrial reserve system where it is necessary to provide greater protection for underrepresented ecosystems.
The swift parrot is in serious decline thanks to a range of factors, not the least native forest logging on public land. Last week, you talked up the efforts of private land owners to protect their habitat, but it’s only you, minister, who can take action to protect habitat on public land.
This question is about you not abrogating your responsibility to do exactly that. What are you doing to identify and protect remnants of critical habitat on public land from logging by Forestry Tasmania?
Mr DUIGAN – I was really pleased to see in the Budget a substantial quantum of funding ‑ $8 million – into our Threatened Species Fund over the next four years –
Mr BAYLEY – Only $3000 a year per species, minister. It’s pretty thin.
CHAIR – Order.
Mr DUIGAN – A lot of work is already ongoing, particularly in relation to the swift parrot. In 2021, the Tasmanian government committed $250,000 per year over four years to enable the implementation of actions identified in the National Recovery Plan for the swift parrot. Some 29 of the 35 actions identified in the national recovery plan relevant to Tasmania are being progressed either partially or fully through this project. The funding has leveraged approximately $3.2 million of funding and in-kind support from other organisations.
To the specific nature of your question around land, I was very pleased to join with the private conservancy groups the other day to talk about land that has been set aside permanently on Bruny and surrounding areas, but in in regard to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s recommendations, as I say, we are also investing in private land conservation through the Private Land Conservation Program. Through that program, we administer 959 conservation covenant agreements that protect 4.2 per cent of Tasmania’s private and public land in perpetuity. That adds to Tasmania’s already extremely substantial reserve estate with more than 50 per cent of our land mass in permanent reserves.
In the 2023-24 financial year, 13 new conservation covenants have been added covering a total of 700 hectares, and many have targeted swift parrot habitat. I’m advised that as of July 2024, there are another 10 individual conservation covenants, four of which are swift parrot habitat being progressed for delivery, which is approximately another 800 hectares of private land. This potential is well in excess of our target performance measures for the year.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, I don’t disagree that the private sector is doing a really good job when it comes to protecting their land. I don’t disagree that Tasmanian Land Conservancy is an excellent organisation that has effectively taken over a responsibility that used to be held by government by managing the Private Land Conservation Fund and program. This is not about private landowners. Private landowners can make decisions, albeit with your support. You’ve talked up some of them, but it is only you, Minister, who can protect habitat on public land. There are thousands of hectares of critical habitat across the future potential production forests (FPPF), for example, and there are thousands of hectares within the permanent timber production zone that has been identified as critical habitat for swift parrots.
The question is what are you doing? Is there a policy position that’s held by the Liberal government to preclude you from progressing action on protecting public land? Is there a barrier there at the policy level?
Mr DUIGAN – There are currently substantial steps right across a range of areas to support swift parrot populations, and this includes management of swift parrot habitat through the forest.
Mr BAYLEY – My question is about your policy, minister. Is the Liberals’ anti‑science position around reserves a blockage here?
CHAIR – Order. Allow the minister to answer.
Mr DUIGAN – It is important, particularly as it applies to public land managed by STT. That is managed through the forest practices system, and it’s a high priority for the government. The forest practices system, established under the Forest Practices Act, was designed to ensure the protection of natural values when undertaking forest operations. Under the forest practices system, threatened species are managed according to agreed procedures implemented between NRE –
Mr BAYLEY – The recovery plan says it doesn’t work.
CHAIR – Order.
Mr DUIGAN – and the FPA. The swift parrot management prescriptions include identifying breeding management, range boundaries, protection of known nests with associated buffers and retention areas of breeding and foraging habitat.
Mr BAYLEY – Why is it the recovery plan –
Mr DUIGAN – The management prescriptions are informed by specialist advice and are updated as required to account for new information to ensure that our threatened species are being appropriately managed. I am straying into the area of minister Abetz, and I –
Mr BAYLEY – How do you explain, minister, that notwithstanding those prescriptions that you will always point to, the recovery plan that has your logo on it is identifying native forest logging, including on public land, as being a key threat to species like the swift parrot, and is recommending that you as minister do more to protect habitat on public land?
How do you explain the inconsistency with your excuse, pointing to the forest practices system, which has long failed species and a whole range of other things including water. How do you explain the inconsistency between that and a recovery plan that says, ‘Take action and take it urgently’?
Mr DUIGAN – As a government, there are a number of things that we would point to ‑ reserve estates, the Forest Practices Act, all of those things. The Secretary may have some more detail in specifics around that.
Mr JACOBI – I will ask Jo Crisp, our General Manager for Environment, to come to the table, but in the meantime, I thank the member for the question. We have done considerable work with the Forest Practices Authority, particularly in the southern forests, in terms of assessing critical habitat. The amount of conservation and community‑based site information that is coming through on a daily basis is incredibly informative, particularly around nesting locations.
That is all being mapped to our to our list map layers, so we have up‑to‑date, contemporary information about where nesting sites are that’s informing not only Forest Practices Authority plans, but STT’s practices. We have a significant swift parrot recovery project underway in the department at the moment, and I will call on Jo Crisp to outline some of the specifics around that program.
Ms CRISP – The swift parrot management project has been doing quite a lot of work around modelling, so we have a really good understanding. We’ve got better mapping than we’ve ever had before to clearly understand areas that are of importance to the swift parrot, and that’s helping us to then target areas for protection. As part of the agreed procedures, the department provides threatened species advice to the Forest Practices Authority, and that is also supported by a range of different planning tools that are used to ensure that we have the swift parrot front and centre when decisions are made. Those are great procedures. They’re adaptive, so, as new information comes, such as the National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot, that is incorporated into how we manage and provide advice.
Mr BAYLEY – The policy question stands nonetheless.
