Report, Motion to Take Note
Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (3.52 pm): I rise to speak on the report titled Examination of Auditor-General report No. 16: 2017-18—Follow-up of managing water quality in Great Barrier Reef catchments. In effect, we are discussing a report about a report which reported on the effectiveness of recommendations in a previous report. This may confuse some. A lay observer would assume that this would be about managing water quality in reef catchments, but it is only that from a very narrow perspective.
In December 2017 the Auditor-General examined whether departments had effectively implemented the five recommendations made in its original report. It has found that they made significant efforts by implementing four recommendations and one partially. This may be commendable from a departmental perspective, but it has not improved the situation for primary producers because the original five recommendations largely focused on determining whether the adverse impact of broadscale land use on the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef is declining. It presupposed the guilt of those who undertake broadscale land use such as graziers and farmers without balancing it with other factors. It came from a limited and narrow focus on only one area of activity which impacts the water quality.
A glaring omission was any reference to natural disasters such as cyclones and floods in an area renowned for these types of weather events. Cyclones and floods can have a devastating effect on the reef regardless of any programs and management practices demanded by government and implemented by industries. Floods flush not only chemicals and pesticides into the system but also other debris, reduce salinity and increase turbidity, all affecting water quality. It is concerning that the first original Auditor-General report determined that land management programs to improve agricultural practices in the sugarcane and grazing industries were not achieving the changes needed to meet time lines while at the same time it found uncertainty and low levels of confidence in modelled results indicating that the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef was improving.
Because the data indicated improvements in water quality, the report determined that there must have been something wrong with the data and the practices of primary producers were still criticised. I have always strongly advocated for the use of quality evidence and data, but this appears to be an attempt to target primary producers because they did not get the results that they wanted. While the latest report says that this has been addressed by almost doubling the number of monitoring sites and monitoring all intensive land use catchments, primary producers are now at fault because of the rate of voluntary adoption of best management practices.
The Auditor-General has now determined that the proposed adoption of minimum practice standards will no longer rely on voluntary participation because the voluntary adoption rate is not sufficient. Responding to the committee’s query as to the reason for the low rate of voluntary adoption of best management practice by producers, the Department of Environment and Science commented that the participation in voluntary industry led BMP programs continues to gain momentum. It said—
Participation is high in Smartcane BMP with 71% of cane land (48% of cane growing businesses) participating and moderate in Grazing BMP with 21% of grazing land (30% of grazing businesses) participating. Accreditation in both the cane and grazing BMP programs is lower than anticipated, with 18% of cane land (8% of cane growing businesses) accredited in Smartcane BMP and 1.9% of grazing land (1.4% of businesses) accredited under Grazing BMP.
The transparency appears to be between participation and accreditation. The department said this is because of the perceived and actual time and costs incurred to reach accreditation as a barrier. This is about spending more time and money on paperwork—on red and green tape—so that bureaucrats can tick some KPI boxes. Everyone wants the reef water quality to be as pristine as possible. Proposals to increase regulation, change management practices, lock up land and remove humans from agricultural industries are looking at the problem through a narrow lens. A thorough and candid investigation should consider all factors impacting the reef, not just the impact from the agricultural sector. This should not be yet another exercise to demonise primary industries.