Submission on the Bushfire Mitigation Measures Bill 2020

23 October 2020

Office of Security and Emergency Management
Department of Premier and Cabinet

Bushfiremitigation@tas.gov.au 

Bushfire Mitigation Measures Bill 2020

Abbreviations

Bushfire Mitigation Measures Bill 2020 – referred to in this submission as the BMM Bill.

Bushfire Mitigation Measures Draft Exposure Bill Explanatory Paper 2020 - referred to in this submission as the Explanatory Paper.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The purpose of the BMM Bill

The Explanatory Paper provides two paragraph, under the heading Background, which attempts to explain why the BMM Bill is being proposed and what it is seeking to achieve. These paragraphs make one thing clear that the BMM Bill is seeking to address some problems related to bushfire mitigation in areas of land where there are existing developments and on vacant land. Beyond that there is no clarity as to what the problems are that the bill might be addressing or whether the proposed bill is the best way of addressing them.

The BMM Bill is proposing a solution to a problem that has not been defined or substantiated and in fact may not exist.

The BMM Bill Explanatory Paper claims that:

For existing developments or undeveloped vacant land, the authorisation process for bushfire mitigation activities can be much more complex’

There is no evidence provided to substantiate the claim that this process is more complex, if it is complex that this causes significant problems and even if it causes problems that the complexity and resultant problems are not warranted.

The BMM Bill Explanatory Paper claims that:

The current approval process can be lengthy and, as a result, may deter or delay landowners and occupiers from taking steps to reduce bushfire risks on their land. Reforms under the Bushfire Mitigation Measures Bill aim to address this issue by creating a streamlined approval process for bushfire mitigation activities.

Again, there is no evidence provided to substantiate the point that the ‘current approval process can be lengthy’ or that this causes any significant problems that are not warranted.

The BMM Bill Explanatory Paper claims that:

Under the Fire Service Act 1979 the State Fire Commission has the power to issue notices to:

• require occupiers of land to remove fire hazards;

• require local councils to deal with fire dangers as if they were a nuisance under the Local Government Act

1993; and

• require the formation of necessary firebreaks (local councils also have this power).

The Bushfire Mitigation Measures Bill will provide a consolidated legislative framework for the issue of bushfire hazard reduction notices requiring the removal or mitigation of bushfire risks (including the establishment of fuel breaks).

Again, there is no evidence provided that there are significant problems with the existing powers regarding notices under the Fire Service Act. It is claimed that the BMM Bill will provide a ‘consolidated legislative framework’ for notices but we are in the dark as to what problem is being addressed, exactly what a ‘consolidated legislative framework’ means and what if any are the advantages of it.

We note the very detailed report ‘Tasmanian Fire Service Review of the Fire Permit System Final Report’ that has recently been released by the TFS and the absence of any reference to it in the Explanatory Paper. The state government should clarify the status of this review report?

The TCT has been informed by the TFS that there is indeed a problem with regard to land subject to historic development approvals and vacant land where bushfire hazards are allowed to develop. The TFS receives regular reports of such hazards. However there seems to have been no attempt to obtain this information from the TFS or to analyze it to assist in developing the legislation.

Orwellian avoidance of ‘fuel-reduction burns’

Neither the BMM Bill nor the Explanatory Paper refers to ‘fuel-reduction burns’ as the most commonly used mitigation measure. The state government is applying a devious Orwellian language to avoid criticism and analysis of its legislation. It is essential the government is explicit about when it is supporting fuel-reduction burns and to specifically refer to alternatives where burning is not possible, preferred or effective. It is noted that recent researched by David Bowman and others has found that fuel-reduction burns are an effective tool for bushfire mitigation in a minority of mainly dry eucalypt vegetation types and that burning of vegetation in some situations heightens bushfire risk. The government’s push to facilitate easier approvals for fuel reduction burns while defining any native vegetation as bushfire-prone vegetation seems calculated to generate a lot of unnecessary and ineffective burning that results in damage to environmental and heritage values and potentially the loss of life.

Relationship to the Fire Service Act

There is no explanation of how the BMM Bill will relate to and integrate with the Fire Service Act or the ongoing review of that act. There is no explanation for why a standalone act is being proposed rather than amendments to the Fire Service Act. Clause 32 of the BMM Bill confirms that the bill prevails over the Fire Service Act where there are inconsistencies but there is no analysis in the Explanatory Paper to show that the potential for inconsistencies has been considered and addressed.

Input by the TFS

The BMM Bill has been developed by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It is our understanding that the policy direction of the bill has been dictated by the DPAC and that TFS has merely provided feedback and much of this may have been ignored.

It is concerning that the principle fire management agency of the state government has not taken the lead in developing this legislation and seems to have negligible influence over the policy direction that the bill is taking.

RESPONSES TO EACH CLAUSE

4. Object of Act

The BMM Bill states that ‘The object of this Act is to facilitate the mitigation of the risk of bushfires whilst balancing natural and cultural heritage values.’

It is unclear what is meant by ‘balancing natural and cultural heritage values.’ Surely a better object would be to seek to maximize the outcomes for the three objectives e.g.

‘The object of this Act is to facilitate the mitigation of the risk of bushfires

while achieving the best outcome for protection of natural and cultural heritage’.

5. Bushfire mitigation measures

Clause 5(3) states that the bushfire mitigation measures must comply with any relevant standards issued by the Chief Officer but our inquires found that there are no formal Tasmanian Fire Service standards. The guidelines as proposed under clause 33 may include standards but it seems clear the BMM is referencing other as yet unwritten standards. The references to standards at clause 5(3) and 13 do not refer to the guidelines and specifically refer to standards issued by the Tasmanian Fire Service whereas the guidelines are issued by the Minister.

What standards does the BMM Bill refer to?

6. Duty to mitigate risk of bushfires

The BMM Bill Explanatory Paper claims that:

The Fire Service Act 1979 already enables the State Fire Commission to issue notices where it considers that steps need to be taken to mitigate bushfire risks. These might require an occupier to remove a fire danger or provide for the construction of a firebreak. However, legislation does not currently include an obligation on landowners or occupiers to actively manage bushfire risks.

It is unclear what ‘actively manage bushfire risks’ means and what the implications are of the changes brought by the BMM Bill.

7. Bushfire Mitigation Measures Panel

It is unclear why the Director of the EPA is represented on the BMM Panel rather than someone with experience and/or qualifications in bushfire mitigation and planning.

The BMM Panel includes two members who are secretaries of departments but they can delegate this responsibility. The secretaries cannot be assumed to have relevant experience and/or qualifications in bushfire mitigation and planning and there is no requirement for them to delegate to someone who has relevant experience and/or qualifications in bushfire mitigation and planning.

The two secretaries and the EPA Director are very busy people and they may not have sufficient time available to perform the role of a panel member.

The BMM Panel includes a member who is nominated by the LGAT but there is no requirement for them to have relevant experience and/or qualifications in bushfire mitigation and planning. The LGAT nominee cannot delegate to another person who might have experience and/or qualifications.

The final member of the BMM Panel is a suitably qualified person appointed by minister but the qualifications are not defined in the BMM Bill.

There is no guarantee that any member of the BMM panel has relevant experience and/or qualifications in bushfire mitigation and planning. This might not be a problem but for the fact that the TFS cannot apply conditions or even provide advice to the BMM Panel (see comments on clause 13).

The BMM Panel members are not required to have experience, qualifications or skills in regard to holding appeals as per clause 23

10. Bushfire mitigation plans

Clause 10(2) outlines the purpose of a BMP.

A BMP is to provide for the maintenance of bushfire mitigation measures to provide for the on-going prevention, or minimisation of risk, of bushfires and for the protection of life and property.

The BMM Bill specifies that the purpose of a BMP is to mitigate bushfire for the protection of life and property but there is no requirement to address environment or heritage impacts even where impacts can be avoided while not reducing the effectiveness of mitigation actions. These may be identified in proposed guidelines but this clause creates a hierarchy where life and property are the priority over the environment. There is no guarantee that environment or heritage impacts will be included in the proposed guidelines. This may inadvertently or deliberately result in destruction of natural and cultural values that could with a little planning, information and care be avoided.

12. Applications to the panel

BMPs are to apply to bushfire-prone areas and the definitions are critical.

There are a number of local councils choosing to not create a bushfire-prone area overlay and in these areas the second definition of bushfire-prone area will apply i.e. ‘land that is within 100 metres of an area of bushfire-prone vegetation equal or greater that one hectare’

The definition of ‘bushfire-prone vegetation’ is essentially ‘contiguous vegetation including grasses and shrubs’. The clause provides exclusions such as lawns, parks, gardens, golf courses, horticultural land. This means that any form of native vegetation is ‘bushfire-prone vegetation’ and potentially paddocks and broad ache non-horticultural crops. This is unnecessarily broad. This would mean that alpine vegetation which is both highly vulnerable to fire and not likely to pose a fire hazard is defined as ‘bushfire-prone vegetation’.

The key parameters included in the definition of ‘bushfire-prone vegetation’, 100 metres and one hectare are not explained and appear to be arbitory.

13. Endorsement of a BMP

Clause 13 provides only for the TFS to endorse a BMP and gives it no power to refuse or require conditions. The TFS has no explicitly stated role in seeking clarification or providing advice.

If the TFS is not satisfied with the BMP there is no option for it to issue a statement that it cannot endorse the BMP and the reasons why. This might be a very practical and beneficial requirement to enable plans to be improved.

If the BMM Panel makes changes to the BMP there is no requirement for the plan to go back to the TFS for an additional endorsement.

In assessing the draft BMP the BMM Bill only requires that TFS ‘is satisfied the BMP specifies appropriate bushfire mitigation measures and complies with any relevant standards issued by the Chief Officer’. Given the standards may not exist (see comments under clause 5) the TFS are only required to ensure ‘the BMP specifies appropriate bushfire mitigation measures’. It is not explicitly stated that the proposed guidelines are to be considered by the TFS.

There is no requirement on the TFS in terms of the process or timeframes they use to assess and endorse the draft BMPs.

There may be considerable resourcing implications for the TFS.

14. Factors to be considered by BMM Panel

There is no defined process for the Panel to verify that the land subject to the BMP is bushfire-prone land, to determine the public interest and to determine whether the proposed actions include land clearing that may not be related to bushfire mitigation.

There is no requirement for onsite verification of information given in an application for BMP. We note that the powers of authorized officers to inspect land under clause 25 do not relate to determining if proposed mitigation actions are warranted, only that a BMP is complied with.

15. Approval of BMP by BMM Panel

Sub-clause 15(3) seems to mean that the BMM Panel has no authority to influence the mitigation measures which greatly limits is effectiveness. In addition to this the TFS cannot provide such advice and under clause 25 authorized officers cannot inspect land to determine if proposed mitigation actions are warranted.

There are no constraints on the land owner or occupier who applied for a BMP. What they claim in a draft BMP is required for bushfire mitigation cannot be refused, conditioned or altered.

16. Exemptions from other Acts

It is unclear what requirements under acts are exempt and what if any are not. The list provided in the Explanatory Paper is not intended to be exhaustive. As well as being dangerously wide it is going to be difficult for those developing BMPs to know what they are exempted from.

It is noted that regulations can exclude certain requirements from the exceptions but there is no guarantee that this will occur or will occur where it is most necessary.

There are endless examples of potential negative impacts of exemptions to relevant authorities. Exemptions could cause the spread of weeds and other pathogens, destruction of threatened species and their habitats, damage to reserved land in areas that are of high conservation and scenic value, result in pollution of streams and erosion, destruction of pasture and crops, to name a few.

19. Bushfire hazard reduction notices

Clause 10(1)(a) allows the Chief Officer to predict the future by determining that vegetation and other material could in the future pose a bushfire danger. This could enable vegetation that currently poses no danger e.g. rainforest or young regrowth forest to be deemed a danger on the basis that it could in years or decades become an a danger.

The term bushfire danger is not defined.

Clauses 19(1)(c) and 19(2) provide for notices to be issued in relation to fuel breaks but there are no parameters in the BMM Bill relating to the minimum or maximum width of a break. Clause 20(2) clarifies that formation of a fuel-break includes ‘clearing of the means of access to a fuel-break’ but there are no limits on how long, wide and direct the vehicle track could be. There is no specific reference to regulations providing this information and it seems that the guidelines proposed at clause 33 do not address fuel breaks.

The BMM Bill does not provide for guidelines that relate to how a fuel-break can be constructed, importantly weather it involves bulldozer removing all vegetation down to the soil or can be made by slashing and how the preferred option is determined. There is no specific reference to regulations providing this information.

No minimum period is provided for complying with a notice. A notice could require action in a very short period time, e.g. a single day, which could be practically impossible to comply with.

20. State Fire Commission or council may make arrangements for fuel-break

Clause 20 provides for the TFS or councils to arrange for fuel-breaks to be constructed but include no requirements that the person who does it has any relevant qualifications or experience.

There are no protections from unnecessary or damaging works being undertaken.

21. Cost recovery where notice not complied with

Clause 21 provides for the TFS to apply to a court to recover costs associated with undertaking of works to construct a fuel-break but it seems unlikely where works are small in scale that they will want to do so because court action will not be cost effective.

23. Appeal against notices

The appeals processes that are to be followed by the BMM Panel are rudimentary. The BMM Bill does not provide for and nor does it require regulations to provide for formal appeal processes. If different appeals are treated in different ways this may lead to court challenges on the basis of procedural unfairness.

The BMM Bill requires complaints to be received and determined by the TFS but appeals over that decision to be made to the BMM Panel. This will pit one agency against the other.

25. Inspection of land and premises

The powers of inspection do not relate to checking to see if a BMP is required or likely to be effective or whether a hazard reduction notice is complied with.

29. Damage caused by brigade

Clause 29 would appear to make significant changes to meaning and effect of many existing and proposed insurance policies dealing with fire. Has the insurance industry been notified and what is their response?

32. Relationship with Fire Service Act 1979

This clause establishes that the BMM Bill prevails over the Fire Service Act 1979 in the event of an inconsistency. Given that there are existing provisions in the Fire Service Act dealing with the matters dealt with in the BMM Act e.g. issuing of notices and development of BMPs the potential for inconsistency may be very great. The Explanatory Paper provides no analysis of the extent and nature of potential inconsistencies nor the effect of the BMM Bill having preeminence.

We note the very detailed report ‘Tasmanian Fire Service Review of the Fire Permit System Final Report’ that has recently been released by the TFS and the absence of any reference to it in the Explanatory Paper. What is the status of this review report?

33. Guidelines

We note that the guidelines ‘may’ be issued, meaning that there is no legal requirement for them. The guidelines have a critical role in assisting with the development, assessment and approval of BMPs. They should be required and the BMM Bill should specify this and a time period for them to be completed and in force.

It would seem beneficial to prescribe in the BMM Bill the minimum or critical content of the guidelines to ensure BMPs are effective and appropriate. However, there are no prescriptions in the BMM Bill regarding the guideline contents and we will rely entirely on the as yet to be released regulations to provide some guidance.

Clause 34(c) provides for regulations that include ‘matters that may be specified, or included, in the guidelines’ – noting that the matters identified in regulations are not required to be included in the guidelines. Given this there are no statutory requirements regarding the content of the guidelines.

We understand that the TFS is currently drafting Guidelines. We ask if the draft guidelines will be released for public comment before the BMM Bill is tabled in parliament?

Yours sincerely

Peter McGlone
CEO
Tasmanian Conservation Trust

Submission on the Draft Rural Water Use Strategy

16 December 2020

Rural Water Use Strategy Project
Water Resources Group
DPIPWE
GPO Box 44
Hobart Tas 7001

Email: water.policy@dpipwe.tas.gov.au 

Submission on the Draft Rural Water Use Strategy

Proposed reviews and assessments

In the TCT’s submission on the Position Paper we asked questions about numerous proposed reviews that were referred to. It seems that none of our questions were answered in the Draft Strategy.

The Draft Strategy makes recommends regarding the following existing or proposed reviews or assessments:

• Groundwater Risk Assessment and Management Framework project (1.2)

• Update surface water modelling to enhance information for decision including updated climate scenarios (1.4).

• Undertake a strategic review of hydrological monitoring networks, and where required, expand or upgrade the networks (1.5).

• Review water accountability and reporting frameworks to strengthen risk-based water use and water conveyance measurement and reporting (1.7)

• Support ongoing development of policies to encourage water recycling and reuse (2.3).

• Review the surface water allocation policy framework (3.1 and 4.1).

• Explore options to increase flexibility for water users (3.2).

• Revise the legislative framework underpinning risk-based water management planning to ensure efficient and effective statutory planning processes (3.4).

• Review arrangements to better facilitate efficient and effective water management in catchments with multiple water managers (3.10).

• Investigate the appropriateness of the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) Guidelines for smaller private dams (3.11).

• Review policy settings for water trading to provide for positive market and sustainable outcomes for Tasmania’s water resources (3.12).

In each case the action refers to a process that is either yet to commence or is under way but not apparently completed or involves the public. The recommendations point to a general policy direction but there is no information provided regarding what the objectives are (noting that the public have not had input to this), what the process will be and what if any public involvement will be provided. There could also be impacts of one review upon another that need to be coordinated. As noted in our earlier submission some processes are underway e.g. Groundwater Risk Assessment and Management Framework project but there is no information provided about the scope and expected outcomes and what if anything can be reported on currently.

While the government is probably expecting to release draft legislation for public comment, this does not address my main concerns. Many proposed processes relate to polices and departmental programs that may involve no legislative change or are only partially implemented through legislation. Also, public consultation needs to be provided at earlier stages prior to draft legislation being drafted.

DPIPWE should consider a coordinated approach to policy development and an ongoing process to provide for public input to each of these processes. Such a complex, long-term and multi-dimensional set of processes and polices may require a multi-sector committee to be formed that would include non-government conservation organisations. The existing Draft Strategy should be considered a preliminary strategy and the long term goal should be to develop a comprehensive strategy incorporating the results of all the proposed reviews or at least the critical ones.

Concerns raised in Position Paper deleted and ignored

In our earlier submission we raised a number of concerns that were in direct response to comments made by DPIPWE in the Position Paper but we note with disappointment that none have been addressed. Given the concerns originate from DPIPWE statements we don’t believe our concerns could be sidelined due to being out of the scope of the Draft Strategy.

For clarity the following points are quoted verbatim from the TCT’s submission to the Position Paper and a comment follows:

• It is greatly concerning that the RWUS confirms that surface water resources in agricultural catchments “approach full allocation” (page 14). It is an additional concern that there is no detailed analysis of where the situation is most critical and whether this corresponds to other factors that may put further pressure on water use e.g. urban expansion, population growth and aquaculture development including hatcheries.

• While a brief mention is made in the Draft Strategy of this issue there is no details provided as per our recommendation.

• In 1.2.3 it is claimed without any reference that "Tasmania's surface water resources are generally well understood by the Department and the tools used for surface water allocation to date have proven to be reliable and adequate for well informed, consistent and transparent decision making". It goes on to state that there may need to be improvements due to changes including climate change. There is no detail to support the claim that the surface water resources are well understood or that the tools to management them have been adequate apart from climate change. The RWUS identifies key gaps in knowledge including the almost total lack of information regarding the interaction between ground water and surface water, which seem to contradict the above statements.

• It is noted that this quote has been removed the Draft Strategy and no similar words appear.

• It is also concerning that in response to the growing full allocation of surface water the RWUS is encouraging further exploitation of ground water. This is of particular importance as the RWUS admits that ground water is the principle source of summer river base flows in some areas. While lack of knowledge regarding the interaction between ground and surface water are admitted it is concerning that there is no guarantee provided that improvements in knowledge will precede any commitments to expand extraction of ground water. We recommend an action that there be no further allocation of ground water approved for commercial purposes until these critical information gaps are addressed and integrated into the Ground Water risk Assessment Framework.

• It is noted that reference to ground water being the principle source of summer river base flows in some areas has been removed from the Draft Strategy.

• The section on "Water quality and river health" opens with the grand over arching statement that "The current condition of the majority of Tasmania's freshwater resource is suitable for consumptive uses ". There is then mention of the monitoring via the River Health Monitoring Program that aims to measure water quality and river health. But there is no detail provided on the results of this monitoring. We are left wondering if only 51% of Tasmania's freshwater resource is suitable for consumptive uses? And which consumptive uses, cropping or drinking?

• It is noted that this quote has been removed the Draft Strategy.

• It is very concerning that at 2.1.1 it is stated that “surface water resources available at surety Levels 5 and 6 are generally considered to be fully allocated during summer and in some catchments winter allocations at these levels are also reached full allocation, or are approaching full allocation.” The RWUS does take this issue seriously and makes some useful suggestions about dealing with it. However, the RWUS should have provided a far more detailed analysis of the state of play with respect to water being fully or nearly fully allocated and what this means for those areas and when other areas may be expected to reach full allocation. This information should at least be provided in the final strategy and there should also be recommendations about which areas should not be subject to further irrigation schemes, especially via Tasmanian Irrigation.

• It is noted that this quote has been removed the Draft Strategy. Inserted in the Draft Strategy is the following statement “Increasingly, surface water resources within agricultural catchments are nearing full allocation”(page 4). References to full allocations have been removed.

• The TCT notes with great interest the reference in 3.1.2 to comments of stakeholders that the very significant investment in irrigation has not been matched with “investment in the delivery of on-ground services to support irrigators to optimise irrigation application and minimise land and soil impacts”. The TCT was consulted as a stakeholder and made similar comments. In particular we think there are fundamental flaws in the planning, management and monitoring use of irrigated water supplied via the Tasmanian Irrigation projects to minimise on and off farm environmental impacts. There is high reliance on the Water Access Plans which have many flaws but the system for developing them is not open to any public input or peer review that we are aware of. The TCT was consulted early on in the development of the WAPs but there seems to be no ongoing broad consultation and review process.

• It is noted that this quote has been removed the Draft Strategy.

• At 3.1.3 there are very broad statistics provided (that are unreferenced), indicating a high contribution to the agricultural output and income from irrigation water when compared to non-irrigated improved land. Without details to show that the land being compared is the same in all other respects it is not possible to believe that the difference is due to irrigation water. It seems to me that farmers would generally have used the irrigation water on their better land. Not addressed is whether irrigation water is being used for its optimal economic use. From the information provided I am left not knowing how much of a contribution irrigation water makes to agricultural production and income and whether it can be increased.

• It is noted that the statistics regarding the value of irrigated agriculture have been removed the Draft Strategy.

Comments made by the TCT (which appear to be in scope) that have been ignored

The TCT made the following statement in its submission on the Position Paper.

Environmental and ecosystem requirements

It is noted that in relation to the Department's position on "Environmental and ecosystem requirements" this section includes a single sentence. The sentence simply states what the processes are that address environmental and ecosystem requirements but provides no details or references to substantiate the success or otherwise of these processes. It is strongly recommended that a new departmental program be developed to undertake effectiveness monitoring to determine whether ecosystem and species requirements are being met by the current management approaches. Regular reports must be released to the public.

The Draft Strategy has removed any specific reference to the issue "Environmental and ecosystem requirements". In its place there is a more vague mention of “1.3: Continue to undertake a range of environmental assessments to support water resource management”. This is a retrograde step.

The Draft Strategy also includes the states that: “Tasmania is renowned for its natural environment which underpins the Tasmanian Brand and many of the competitive advantages enjoyed by agricultural and other Tasmanian producers” (page 5). This merely refers to the benefit to agriculture of Tasmania’s “renowned natural environment” and says nothing specifically about how freshwater values might be protected from impacts from agriculture.

The TCT made the following statement in its submission on the Position Paper.

3.3 Water recycling and reuse

The TCT in principle supports the reuse of treated water for a range of agricultural or horticultural uses. However, we note that there are a number of matters related to Recycled Water Schemes that fall into a legislative gap.

Through correspondence with the EPA – regarding a particular RWS proposed for Opossum Bay - we have discovered at least three legal gaps that have serious potential impacts and should be addressed in the final RWUS.

It has been confirmed that in some cases public consultation might be considered important but there is no guarantee that it occurs through local government planning processes. This is the case with the proposal to use recycled water on a public reserve at Opossum Bay.

Secondly, the environmental impacts of each individual RWS are probably insufficient to trigger the EPA’s assessment of them as a level 2 project. It is our view that this is likely to result, in areas where numerous RWS are operating, in incremental impacts that in total have serious environmental impacts but are not assessed or controlled.

Thirdly, the principal means of planning and assessing a proposed RWS is through the production of a Environmental Impact Statement that is submitted to the inter agency committee, the Wastewater Reuse Coordinating Group (WWRCG). This committee and its processes are informal and is not established under any legislation. One major flaw is that there is no requirement for public input.

The Draft Strategy has not responded to this issue but states “2.3 Support ongoing development of policies to encourage water recycling and reuse”. The concerns raised are clear impediments to agricultural development as well raising environmental concerns and the final strategy should include actions to address them.

Issue raised that may be out of scope

The DPIPWE document “Overview of submissions received on the Rural Water Use Strategy Position Paper”, which purports to summarise comments raised in submissions, fails to clearly identify which issues are out of scope. Only three issues are marked with a cross indicating it is entirely out of scope:

• the AgriVision 2050

• On-farm irrigation management

• Catchment management and cumulative impacts to freshwater values

It seems unfair that these issues are deemed out of scope and public comments on them excluded from consideration as I do not recall a specific statement in the Position Paper or earlier DPIPWE documents defining the scope. The Position Paper identified the AgriVision 2050 target as the goal of the strategy so it is only fair the government identifies the rationale for the target and how it is expected to be achieved.

It seems slightly self defeating to exclude on-farm irrigation management. Unless key concerns are addressed, such as increased sentiment and nutrient pollution of water ways, then the long term future of irrigated agriculture may be threatened as well as causing environmmental damage.

The Draft Strategy (page 3) states that:

A small number of issues that were raised through the consultation process on the Rural Water Use Strategy Position Paper are outside the scope of the Rural Water Use Strategy. These include matters relating to catchment management and urban water supply security and management. These topics are generally addressed through existing mechanisms, activities and programs.

The Draft Strategy fails to identify “which existing mechanisms, activities and programs” exist that address catchment management cumulative impacts to freshwater values.

A further 6 issues were marked with both a ✓ and an *, indicating that the issues raised are in scope to a limited extent only:

• Scope/ Inclusiveness

• Water Quality

• River Health

• Issues in relation to dams

• Water recycling and reuse

• Aquaculture

In regard to most of these issues numerous discrete points are made about each. There is no indication of what points are in and out of scope. Without this detail, the public cannot have confidence as to why certain issues have been ignored in the Draft Strategy and why.

Under the heading “Scope/ Inclusiveness” there is a statement that submitters recommended the strategy cover a wider range of water uses and users and a long list is included. Despite this point being designated as partially in scope we are not told which uses are in and out of scope.

Yours sincerely

Peter McGlone
Director
Tasmanian Conservation Trust
peter@tct.org.au

Submission to the Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan Project

Project Manager
Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan Project 

DeerManagementPlan@dpipwe.tas.gov.au

Submission to the Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan Project

Consultation Process Inadequate

I have monitored the DPIPWE web site during the consultation period for the Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan Project. The call for submissions to the Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan was not advertised at any time on the ‘Have your say’ page that is accessed via the DPIPWE home page – this is the key place people go for public consultations involving DPIPWE.

The open consultations as listed at 130pm on the closing date for submissions on 11 December 2020 (Attachment 1) does not include mention of the Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan. To find information about the call for submissions a person would have to just know to go from the home page to ‘Agriculture’ and then ‘Game Services Tasmania’.

The ‘Hot topics section’, also accessed via the DPIPWE home page curiously promotes the public meetings organized by the department but not the call for submissions.

The state government has done all it can to limit the chances of people finding out about the call for submissions.

Key information and government commitments not provided

There is no back ground document provide to assist with preparing submissions so the information provided on the DPIPWE web site is critical for all those making submissions.

The information on the DPIPWE web site (address below) provides a summary of the proposed Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan Project and the process to be taken to develop a Wild Fallow Deer Management Plan.

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/agriculture/game-services-tasmania/wild-fallow-deer-management-plan

The submissions web site states:

The Plan will capture current accepted management practices, existing government policy and commitments relevant to deer management, including the Government's response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry, as well as articulating additional strategies and actions.

The plan will also consider the outcomes of the recently completed baseline aerial survey of the wild fallow deer population.

The Plan will function as a single point of reference for wild fallow deer management in Tasmania.

Key issues

Some of the key issues to be addressed in the plan include:

 -        Supporting recreational deer hunting

-        Management of wild deer impacts on private or primary production land

-        Management of wild deer impacts on natural and cultural values

-        Management of satellite wild deer populations and in areas currently free from wild fallow deer

The plan will be developed on the basis of wild fallow deer remaining a partly protected species under the Wildlife Regulations.

The web site also states that a ‘release of a draft plan for a public comment period, expected to be in early 2021’.

It is a great pity the web site did not at least provide a link to the referenced documents:

-        the Government's response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry;

-        existing government policy (Liberal 2018 election policy ‘Supporting Recreational Hunting’);

-        the outcomes of the recently completed baseline aerial survey of the wild fallow deer population.

It would have taken little effort to provide a summary of each including the key actions from the 2017 Response to the Legislative Council inquiry, the specific election commitments and the key results from the aerial survey such as the estimate of total fallow deer population and the estimated rate of increase.

In regard to the aerial survey the DPIPWE web site doesn’t even confirm that a report had been produced and was available.

Most importantly, there seems to be a deliberate effort to avoid mention of the state governments polices and the degree to which they dictate the scope and direction of the proposed plan. The draft management plan will inevitably follow very closely the Liberal 2018 election policy ‘Supporting Recreational Hunting’ and the Government's response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry.

There seems to be a deliberate effort by the state government to omit a key recommendation made response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry and we discuss that below.

Summary of state government policy commitments and impact on the proposed management plan

The DPIPWE web site states that the management plan ‘will capture’ ‘existing government policy and commitments relevant to deer management, including the Government's response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry’.

The relevant documents are:

-        Liberal 2018 election policy: ‘Supporting Recreational Hunting’;

-        the Government's response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry, full title: ‘Response to the legislative council government administration committee “a” inquiry and report on wild fallow deer in Tasmania’.

The attachment 2 includes a comparison of the commitments from both documents and includes notes on the key differences.

If the specific actions and polices contained in these documents are taken into account it is not an exaggeration to say that the management plan is pretty much already written and this consultation is largely a window dressing exercise. These policies largely align with each other and set out very clear objectives and strategies for wild fallow deer management. We anticipate the government virtually cutting and pasting from these policy commitments. The government must be willing to amend these policy commitments and add to them in order to develop a meaningful management plan. There are also a number of ambiguities where the two documents appear to not align or include critically different wording and prioritization. These must be addressed prior to preparing the management plan.

Critically one action from the government’s response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry’ is omitted in the Liberal Party 2018 state election policy and this is”

Action  -  DPIPWE  will  work  with  public  land  managers,  landholders  and  the  private  land conservation  sector to  coordinate  targeted  control  programs  to  manage emerging  satellite populations,  and  populations  moving  into  and/or  impacting  on  areas  with  significant conservation values including the TWWHA. 

The government might claim that the policy includes the general commitment ‘A re-elected Hodgman majority Liberal Government will implement in-full our comprehensive policy response to the Legislative Council Inquiry into Wild Fallow Deer as we tabled in Parliament in November 2017’. However, it is clearly a conscious policy shift to omit only this recommendation. This is after all the only action that might require action by the state government to control deer – something the government seems determined to avoid.

The election policy response to the next issue, involving recreational shooters in controlling deer in reserved land, alludes to the existence of control programs without making any commitments to action. The key wording is vague: ’This will complement coordinated control programs to be undertaken by professionals to manage satellite deer populations and deer impacting on areas with significant conservation values like the TWHAA.’

For a start it doesn’t identify DPIPWE as being responsible for contributing to control programs and doesn’t identify target areas or timeframes for controlling satellite populations.

RECOMMENDATION: The proposed management plan must include a similar commitment to the action listed above. It should go further to identify a deer management area and make a commitment to control or eradication of deer populations outside of this area including a commitment to timeframes and the required resources. Priority target areas should be identified and prioritised on the basis of conservation significance and vulnerability to degradation by deer. In addition to satellite populations areas such as the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Freycinet National Park and Mounting Lagoon should be priorities for eradication and/or ongoing control.

The Liberal Election policy has removed the commitment to government action to control fallow deer and instead has focused (half of the policy) on encouraging hunters to control deer in reserved land. The involvement of hunters could potentially be useful if there were any properly planned and resourced deer control programs in place in reserved land. As there seems to be no such programs in existence currently and the government has backed away from establishing them it seems hard to understand exactly what hunters are going to be achieving. This seems to be entirely an exercise in providing reserves as hunting areas with no likelihood there will be any environmental outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION: The TCT does not oppose the government’s commitment to supporting hunters to shoot deer in reserved land but the government should not mislead the community this is just recreational shooting.

The election policy response to the following action has been critically amended to omit the words in bold that relate to resources.

A new Game Services Tasmania will be established and appropriately resourced within DPIPWE to support landholders, farmers and hunters to effectively manage deer and all issues relating to game and browsing animals in Tasmania.

These words have been replaced with a much softer commitment to ‘support landholders, farmers and hunters to effectively manage deer and all issues relating to game and browsing animals’.

RECOMMENDATION: The proposed management plan must include a similar commitment to appropriate resourcing. It should go further to specify resources required to undertake priority actions.

The election policy regarding the establishment of the Game Services Tasmania includes a new and important addition to the corresponding action from the November 2017 response document – relevant words are in italics.

Establish a new Game Services Tasmania within DPIPWE to support landholders, farmers and hunters to effectively manage deer and all issues relating to game and browsing animals. Game Services Tasmania will have a strong policy and functional alignment to primary industries, our supporting our AgriFood Plan and target to grow the annual farm gate value of agriculture to $10 billion by 2050.

The first part of the policy commits to the establishment of Game Services Tasmania and identifies it as the key part of DPIPWE to manage deer. The second and new part stipulates that the management of deer by Game

Services Tasmania is to be for the benefit of primary industries. This seems to be a way to commit the government to not managing wild fallow deer for conservation purposes.

RECOMMENDATION: The management plan must include a goal to reduce the environmental and economic impacts of feral deer and limit their spread. This will require a commitment to identifying an agency such as Parks and Wildlife service and/or Biosecurity Tasmania as being responsible for implementing strategies to control deer to protect environmental values.

Other limits to the process of developing a management plan

The DPIPWE web site says that the management plan will articulate ‘additional strategies and actions’ but there is no guidance as to the limits of these additional strategies and actions given the existing government polices. The one exception is that the web site states ‘The plan will be developed on the basis of wild fallow deer remaining a partly protected species under the Wildlife Regulations.’ The TCT believes that this option should be considered and the government has made a grave mistake by ruling it out at this time.

RECOMMENDATION: The management plan should include a commitment to keeping open the option to remove fallow deer as partly protected species under the Wildlife Regulations.

The DPIPWE web site also states that the ‘Plan will capture current accepted management practices’. These words seem to limit the management plan to documenting the current management practices while not attempting any critique of them or to question the objectives of management. This concern seems to be confirmed by the state government commitment (included in the response to the 2017 Legislative Council inquiry and the 2018 state election policy) to ‘Conduct an overarching review of the effectiveness of deer management strategies five years from the first state-wide census.‘ If this commitment is not changed any ‘review of the effectiveness of deer management strategies’ would be outside the scope of the management plan and would only commence five years after the census was concluded. This is a highly retrograde step.

RECOMMENDATION: The management plan should include a clear commitment to immediately undertake a review of the effectiveness of deer management strategies.

Yours sincerely

Peter McGlone
CEO, Tasmanian Conservation Trust

ATTACHMENT 1

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/see-also/public-comments-invited

Accessed 1.30pm, 11 December 2020

Consultations

Open

·        Draft Routine Import Risk Analysis for Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd)
Comments are invited by 29 January 2021 as part of a second round of consultation on the draft Import Risk Assessment for Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd).
Open until: 29 Jan 2021

·        Draft Biosecurity (SDN-1 Modified Organism) Regulations 2020
New regulations are being developed to regulate the entry of SDN-1 modified organisms to Tasmania and any activities with organisms modified using SDN-1 techniques.
Open until: 29 Jan 2021

·        White-faced storm-petrel (Pelagodroma marina)
Connecting plastic, plankton and planktivorous Procellariiformes - consultation closes 24 December 2020
Open until: 24 Dec 2020

·        TWWHA Biosecurity Strategy 2021-2031
A Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) Biosecurity Strategy is being developed to protect and enhance the natural and cultural values of the TWWHA.
Open until: 24 Dec 2020

·        Whites’ skink (Liopholis whitii)
How does the thermal environment influence parental care? - Consultation closes 23 December 2020
Open until: 23 Dec 2020

·        Digital Processes Amendments to the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995
Draft amendments to fisheries legislation to achieve digital transition under the Digital Transition Project have been released for public comment.
Open until: 18 Dec 2020

·        Rural Water Use Strategy
The Rural Water Use Strategy will guide the State’s future water management arrangements to ensure integrated, fair and efficient regulation of the State’s water resources.
Open until: 16 Dec 2020

·        Review and Amendment of the Great Forester Catchment Water Management Plan
The Great Forester Catchment Water Management Plan 2003 has been reviewed and updated to guide water access and management in the catchment for the next 10 years.
Open until: 11 Dec 2020 

Limitations of the review of the Forest Practices Code

Forest Practices Authority
30 Patrick St
Hobart Tas 7000

code_review@fpa.tas.gov.au

20 September 2019

Limitations of the review of the Forest Practices Code

At some time at the end of 2017 or early 2018 the Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) decided to undertake a review of Forest Practices Code 2015.

I was invited to nominate for one of the working groups that was to contribute to the Code review. I successfully nominated for the Biodiversity Working Group. I attended three meetings of the working group held in July, August and September 2018.

At the first meeting of the working group held on 11 July 2018, I asked the Chief Forest Practices Officer why the Code was being reviewed and whether it would result in recommendations to the state government to amend legislation and policies to address critical weaknesses in the Code and on-ground forest management. I specifically raised the need to amend the Code to stop the destruction of swift parrot breeding habitat. I was told that the review was not to consider policy issues and not to make recommendations regarding changes to policy or legislation. We were just to rewrite the Code. This was, I was told, because the state government had not indicated any interest in changing legislation or policy in regard to forest practices.

At several times during the three working group meetings I raised the need for recommendations of the Threatened Fauna Advisor, specifically in relation to swift parrot, to be made obligatory but was told that the review was not to consider such changes. Currently, the Code requires that the Threatened Fauna Advisor be consulted in certain circumstances but there is no requirement to implement the recommendations.

The ‘Review of the Forest Practices Code: Terms of Reference for Working Groups’, which was only provided to me after I made a request following the second working group meeting, makes clear that the review is to amend the Code only to better implement the existing objectives. In other words, it is an operational review only.

Having participated in the review I concluded that the review of the Code would result in no substantive changes that could improve management of forests for biodiversity.

I have reviewed the ‘FPA’s Code review findings’ and ‘Effect of the proposed amendments’ which were distributed to those who participated in the review (dated 17 July 2019) and conclude that my assessment of the Code review is correct. If implemented, the items listed under ‘Effect of the proposed amendments’, will result in no substantive changes that could improve management of forests for biodiversity.

This failure to address key weaknesses of the Forest Practices Code follows the failure of the previous 2007-2015 review of the Code to deliver substantive changes.

In summary, a review of the biodiversity provisions of the Code was commenced in 2007 and a key scientific report was published in April 2009 titled ‘Review of the biodiversity provisions of the Forest Practices Code’. The Code was not amended until July 2015 and none of the significant recommendations from the 2009 scientific review resulted in changes to the Code. The only significant change to the Code was the inclusion of a landowner’s duty of care statement which arguably makes no positive contribution to biodiversity conservation.

The 2009 scientific review report found the Code was greatly inadequate and recommended a wide range of changes to give greater protection to biodiversity. What has occurred is that many recommendations have resulted in further research and development of advisory guides and planning tools, most notably the threatened fauna advisor. But because the Code has not been changed the recommendations from these planning tools are not required to be implemented. This is the nub of the problem with species such as the swift parrot, where breeding habitat is continuing to be approved for logging even where the advice is that it should not.

It is notable that despite a massive improvement in biodiversity knowledge and implementation of very sophisticated planning tools, there have been no significant changes to the Code this century.

If the Code has not been substantively updated this century, the Tasmanian community must ask whether it will ever be allowed to be upgraded. This inability of the FPA and State Government to ever make substantive changes to the Code will have real world impacts such as the potential for Tasmanian public forest managers to obtain FSC certification. I have communicated these concerns to SCS Global Services, who are currently undertaking an FSC Certification Evaluation of Sustainable Timbers Tasmania.

Yours sincerely

Peter McGlone

Director, Tasmanian Conservation Trust