2016-11-01
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise today to speak on Mrs Peulich's motion 332. Certainly the Victorian Greens welcome debate on this motion. I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be able to talk about endangered species in the wetlands of Victoria as part of my responsibility under the public transport portfolio. The Victorian Greens have always advocated for meaningful, timely and informed consultation with communities about major infrastructure projects. Included in that consultation there should always be full disclosure of the impacts on the environment by such developments.
I have already spoken in this chamber about the Labor government's tardiness in providing affected communities with information on the full extent of the impacts of level crossing removals. My colleagues and I will continue to advocate for continuing community consultation on the implementation of level crossing removals, particularly the preservation of heritage and the minimisation of the loss of trees and habitat.
This motion cites the Ramsar convention, also known as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Ramsar convention is the intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for the conservation of wetlands. Signatories to the Ramsar convention must work towards the protection and wise use of all their wetlands through national plans, policies and legislation, management actions and public education. Australia became a signatory to this very important convention in 1974. They must also designate suitable wetlands for the list of wetlands of international importance to ensure their effective management.
Why is an international convention on wetlands necessary? Because wetlands are some of the world's most biodiverse environments. They are rich ecosystems that provide the habitat on which countless species of plants and animals depend for survival. But wetlands have been disappearing. Researchers at Charles Sturt University have conducted the meta-analysis and have deduced that at least 64 per cent of the world's wetlands have been lost since 1900. The Ramsar convention provides an international platform on which joint efforts and monitoring of wetland preservation are based.
Mrs Peulich's motion also refers to the commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC act). The EPBC act is the most crucial piece of environmental legislation in Australia. It provides the framework for the protection of the Australian environment, including its biodiversity and its naturally and culturally significant places. The act refers to a number of international treaties and agreements, including the Ramsar convention and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Victorian Greens are delightfully surprised by the Liberal-Nationals coalition's newly discovered affection for the Ramsar convention and the EPBC act. I urge Mrs Peulich and her colleagues to further their interest in the tangible ecological services provided by the wetlands, including but not limited to water purification, flood control, groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration and shoreline stabilisation. Just as importantly, I encourage the opposition to cultivate an affection for the ethereal beauty of these all too rare waterscapes, particularly rare in the suburban areas of Melbourne.
I must say this is quite a damascene conversion for Mrs Peulich and her colleagues in the Liberal-Nationals coalition. If only they had shown this dedication to the Ramsar convention when they were last in government. I seem to recall that it was this lot that were going to run roughshod over Australia's obligation under the Ramsar convention when they created the Port of Hastings Development Authority to expand that port. This duplicative and unnecessary expansion would have imposed extensive damage to 60 000 hectares of marine subtidal aquatic beds, intertidal mud and sand flats, salt marsh and mangrove forests in the Western Port wetlands. These wetlands are home to many species of small birds, including the pied oystercatcher, sooty oystercatcher, black-winged stilt, red-necked avocet, red-capped plover, black-fronted dotterel, hooded plover and masked lapwing. Considering their nascent devotion to the Ramsar convention, I look forward to the Liberal-Nationals coalition repealing their policy of expanding the port of Hastings to protect these shore bird species.
I turn to the specific wetland referred to in this motion. The motion correctly states that the Edithvale wetlands and the Seaford wetlands are remnants of the Carrum Carrum Swamp. As a new student of the history of the wetlands in Victoria, Mrs Peulich would know that the Carrum Carrum Swamp was drained and developed over a century before the Ramsar convention came into effect at a time when colonial misconceptions of wetlands were that they were festering swamps that were good for nothing except draining and converting to farmland. We know much better these days.
The Edithvale-Seaford wetlands were listed under the Ramsar convention in 2001, and while far smaller than the original extent of the Carrum Carrum Swamp, these wetlands harbour a dizzying array of flora and fauna: 151 bird species, including 74 waterbird species can be found in the Edithvale wetlands and 163 bird species, including 79 waterbird species, can be found in the Seaford wetlands. I will not list them all; however, some of the endangered waterbird species that can be found in these wetlands include the Australian little bittern, Lewin's rail, the eastern curlew, Pacific gull, magpie goose, blue-billed duck, white-bellied sea-eagle, Australasian bittern, Baillon's crake and the painted snipe. There are also innumerable fish, frog and reptile species in this wetland habitat.
Of course there are flora values too. The wetlands have the following flora of regional conservation significance: the hairy centrolepsis, the swamp crassula, the pale flax lily, the rounded noon-flower, the cherry ballart, the scrambling coral fern, the creeping monkey-flower and the common boobialla.
With her emerging acquaintance with the details of the Ramsar convention and the EPBC act, no doubt Mrs Peulich has acquainted herself with how they are applied in the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan published by Melbourne Water earlier this year. This document provides a definitive mapping of the specific ecological zones of the wetland and a boundary of the Ramsar area. If you were to take a cursory glance at these maps, you would note there is not a train line anywhere near that. Indeed there are whole suburbs between the Edithvale-Seaford wetlands and the Frankston rail line. There are even a couple of golf courses, which typically have a poor record when it comes to water pollution due to the use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.
There are eight level crossings slated for removal on the Frankston line. Of those, three are near water bodies. One is south of the Patterson River and two are in the vicinity of the Kananook Creek, both of which drain into the Edithvale-Seaford wetlands. None of these locations is adjacent or proximate to the aforementioned Ramsar boundary. While the Victorian Greens always demand proportional environmental impact assessment and mitigation to be undertaken for all major construction projects, particularly those projects that impact on threatened species, it appears to be overzealous to claim that these level crossing removals would have a noteworthy impact on the Edithvale-Seaford wetlands. This unfortunately raises suspicions in my mind about Mrs Peulich's budding fondness for the Ramsar convention. Maybe she does not have a passion for wetland ecologies. Maybe she cares not for the striped marsh frog or the large river buttercup. Maybe she is not awed by the vistas of sedge land and tall marshes at dusk.
Unfortunately it seems that the opposition is invoking the good name of the Ramsar convention to raise false hopes amongst communities along the Frankston rail line to score political points in this Parliament. Her party has good form on that tactic. Mr Davis used the same tactic to raise false hopes in communities along the Cranbourne-Pakenham line by falsely claiming that blocking planning amendment GC37 would prevent elevated rail from being built on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line. That is cynical politics at its worst.
I also note that the federal leader of the Liberal-National coalition, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, announced earlier this week that the federal government would be reviving another dead policy from the disastrous Tony Abbott era. It seems the Prime Minister's hands are also tied by the hard-right, out-of-touch dinosaurs of his own government, and he has been forced to express a fervent desire to clamp down on free speech and free association. Malcolm Turnbull has decided to introduce Tony Abbott's laws to limit the legal standing of conservation groups mounting court cases against major projects. He wants to gag Australian environmental organisations that have the temerity to request that his government apply environmental laws such as the EPBC act to major projects, just like the level crossing removals, which leaves the opposition in rather a bind, does it not?
Let us consider a hypothetical situation where the level crossing removals on the Frankston line were a major threat to the health of the Edithvale-Seaford wetlands and there was a valid case to be made that the state government had neglected its responsibilities under the EPBC act due to imperilling a Ramsar-listed wetland. In that case, if a community-based environmental organisation such as Friends of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands or the Port Phillip Conservation Council were to try and launch a court case of a similar nature to that outlined in this motion, they would be gagged under Malcolm Turnbull's proposed legislation. It would seem that the right hand of the Liberal Party does not know what the left hand is doing.
The Victorian Greens and our federal colleagues will always advocate for full and genuine abidance by the Ramsar convention. The Victorian Greens and our federal colleagues will steadfastly defend and strengthen the EPBC act. The Victorian Greens will always stand up for the state's precious wetlands. The Victorian Greens will always advocate for meaningful, timely and fully informed consultation on major infrastructure projects. In comparison, the Liberal-National coalition has wilfully trashed Ramsar-listed wetlands and their federal colleagues are yet again attempting to weaken the EPBC act and silence environmental advocates. The Liberal-National coalition gives false hope to communities affected by major infrastructure projects in order to score political points. The means of this motion is a complete nonsense, but the Greens will not oppose its ends. The Victorian Greens will always support referrals for any project under the EPBC act where a trigger is identified.