The taskforce was set up in January 2009 to investigate a range of fish health problems at the Sunland Fish Hatchery, including fish deaths and abnormalities.

“It was alleged that these issues, and broader problems associated with the Noosa River, were caused by chemical spray drift from an adjoining macadamia farm,” the Minister said.

“It had been my intention to release this report when it was completed a year ago, but I was unable to due to outstanding legal obstacles. These have now been resolved which means I am able to provide the report to the courts and the public.”

Minister Mulherin said these types of investigations were complex and it was difficult to identify a specific cause.

“Overall, the investigation found that there was no definitive link between chemicals and the events that occurred at the hatchery or in the Noosa River.

“While agricultural chemicals may be a contributing factor in some of the events that were investigated, other factors like fish diseases and parasites, water quality, past environmental contaminants and hatchery management practices cannot be ruled out as the primary cause.

Minister Mulherin said the findings contained in the final report represented the majority view of taskforce members.

“The taskforce was not unanimous on the conclusions, but this is not unexpected given the size and complexity of the investigations that were undertaken,” he said.

“However, taking this into account, I commissioned a further analysis of the report findings through independent experts.

“Toxikos, a toxicology consultancy firm based in Melbourne, was commissioned in late 2010 to provide advice on whether the final report conclusions were reasonable.

“Toxikos found that the report had reached a reasonable set of conclusions and agreed it is not possible to identify a chemical cause for the events at the Hatchery.

“This independent report will also be released today [June 8].”

The final taskforce report makes 29 recommendations related to biosecurity practices on both the hatchery and macadamia farm, chemical labeling and review, monitoring of fish stocks in Noosa River, clarification of roles and responsibilities for spray drift incidents, land use planning, and ongoing research.

“The government will now work with the identified stakeholders to progress these recommendations,” the Minister said.

“For government, the recommendations focus on clarifying roles and responsibilities, continued water monitoring at the hatchery, monitoring of bass stocks in the Noosa River and research.

“A number of actions have begun. A revised statement of roles and responsibilities of various agencies involved in the management of spray drift complaints has been published on the web and the first spawning trial on broodstock has been conducted at Bribie Island Research Centre.

“Now that the report is public, we will be working with industry and scientific organisations to design and fund a suitable research program into possible impacts of chemicals, or combinations of chemicals, on native fish. Spawning trials will also continue.

“Another recommendation was that we provide our final report to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for its consideration. We will be acting on this immediately now that the report has been released.”

Biosecurity Queensland’s Chief Biosecurity Officer, Dr Jim Thompson, who chaired the taskforce, said it had been a lengthy and thorough investigation that had considered other possible causes of fish health problems like genetics, environmental factors, infection, nutrition, non-pesticide toxins and husbandry factors.

“I thank all of the taskforce members for their efforts,” he said.

“Biosecurity Queensland has continued to provide advice to the hatchery and the macadamia business owners as to how their enterprises can co-exist.

“Biosecurity Queensland also continues to investigate incidents of animal health issues at the hatchery as they are reported. To date, no evidence has come to light to change the final report’s conclusions.”

The taskforce included officers from Biosecurity Queensland, DERM, Queensland Health, an independent eco-toxicologist, a private veterinarian, and representatives from industry bodies Growcom, the Aquaculture Association of Queensland and the Australian Macadamia Association.

Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the modest clean energy funding in the Budget package highlighted the need for a carbon price that would provide enough revenue to transform Australia’s energy supply.

“Whether it’s wave energy, hot rocks geothermal or large scale solar, our home grown clean energy innovation is a potential world beater. We welcome the Federal Government’s ability to listen to the industry and channel additional funding where it is desperately needed,” Mr Warren said.

“Innovation is one of Australia’s great competitive advantages and we urgently need to get the $200 million allocated by the government into on-the-ground projects to stop the offshore brain drain.

“Although the $100 million allocated under the Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund is a good start, the allocated timeframes will see this trickled out until 2023/24. This will leave a funding and policy gap during an important transition period for the industry,” he said.

Mr Warren said the industry was also disappointed the Solar Schools program was being wound up early.

“We hope the government is now focused on delivering a carbon price and directing revenue to renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to take the load off household electricity bills,” Mr Warren said.

“The government’s focus on austerity underlines the need for additional revenue from carbon pricing to drive the transformation of Australia’s energy supply.

“Professor Ross Garnaut has estimated revenue for a carbon price to be between $2-3 billion per annum and some portion of this should be directed to renewable energy investment and energy efficiency for households and businesses.

“We would also like to see the introduction of an independent carbon bank that would coordinate climate programs in a manner that is not tied to the political climate of the day. It could also borrow against future revenue to fund transitionary assistance in the short term,” he said.

Matthew Warren, the Chief Executive of the Clean Energy Council, questioned the justification for the government’s  announcement.

“This decision has nothing to do with rising electricity prices, and everything to do with supporting an industry of the future. That’s why any job losses in this industry are the worst kind of job losses.

“So it’s a necessary change, but it will hurt,” he said.

Mr Warren said the positive aspects of strong demand for solar technology by Australian families should not be lost amid policy uncertainty.

The truth is Australia loves solar. It is a technology that gives families a way of protecting themselves against rising electricity prices,” he said.

“Electricity price rises are mainly driven by the need for critical investment in network capacity. Painting solar as the problem-child is misguided and out of step with what Australians are telling us through their purchasing decisions.

“Yesterday (May4) we released data for solar installations across Australia as a percentage of eligible households. It shows the idea that solar is the province of inner-urban elites is a myth. People in regional communities, working class suburbs and coastal villages are all signing up. Australians from all walks of life are embracing this technology.”

Mr Warren said there is the real risk that this industry could be a victim of its own success.

“The SRES Scheme is designed to be an uncapped incentive for households to install solar. Australian households have responded exactly as the policy intended.

“What has been done today is an effort to correct a flaw in the market design, not to control electricity prices that are barely affected by this program.”

Mr Warren said the solar industry had weathered years of stop-start policy from state and federal governments.

“It is appropriate that support is adjusted as the cost of solar power systems continue to fall. But the minimal time available for business planning will mean that small businesses in particular will struggle to ride the wave of rising and falling demand as a result of this decision.

“This will lead to pain for some solar installers. These are business people who have taken a significant financial risk, they have real skin in the game.”

“Current market pressures are the result of a number of local and international factors occurring simultaneously. They might not equate to a permanent shift in conditions,” he said.

It’s alarming to think that this might be just our first taste of dangerous climate change across the state, but that’s exactly what the evidence suggests. 

While Premier Anna Bligh has had huge jump in the polls, largely attributed to her response to the immediate disaster situations we experienced earlier this year, the real work in responding to the floods has barely begun.

A Commission of Inquiry has been set up to look at every aspect of the floods, ranging from assessment of the immediate response to much further-out issues like land use planning.

They are also looking at the way dams were managed. Wivenhoe dam was at 148 per cent when the floods started, so this is bound to turn up some interesting answers.

The other major government action we’ve seen is the development of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, a whole new department — led by the Premier herself – devoted to coordinating the state’s huge recovery and rebuilding effort.

Six sub-groups have been formed, each working on a specific issue – Transport, Economics, the Environment, Communication, Human and Social Recovery and Building Recovery. Each of these is developing a ‘roadmap’ of actions to be provided to the Reconstruction Authority for incorporation into their plan, ‘Operation Queenslander’.

Some are well-advanced, like the environment roadmap, but there’s a lot of work ahead and a lot hinges on how well it’s delivered.  

Queensland Conservation has picked up a whole lot of new work even as Brisbane locals picked up the pieces after the devastation. Its team  has put together a submission to the flood inquiry, as well as being one of the only NGO groups in the premier’s ‘environment’ subgroup.

We’re working hard to ensure that as our state rebuilds, it does it right.  As the organisation that represents Queensland’s environment groups, including SCEC, ‘doing it right’, means many things.

Here are the three ideas we’re advocating most strongly.

Planning for a new climate

Firstly, we need to be much more careful where we put our homes, roads and public infrastructure. It doesn’t make sense to put homes in places that will flood up to the rafters more and more frequently as our climate spins out of control. Nor does it make sense to have sewage facilities on river banks, or industrial sites on floodplains.  When these sites flood, they not only bring contamination to local waters but also the marine waters downstream, ruining reefs and silting up seagrass beds. Not good news if you’re a dugong. 

Building to reduce emissions

Secondly, it’s crucial that we rebuild with the new generation of green buildings that’s emerging across the globe. Queensland Conservation’s executive director, Toby Hutcheon, calls this “[…] a great opportunity to transition Queensland away from climate-harming designs and practices”.

Modern designs are affordable highly energy-efficient homes that produce enough electricity to cover their own needs, and harvest enough rainwater to be almost self-sufficient. Queensland Conservation is working hard to get this opportunity recognised – it’d be a terrible waste to rebuild houses from the seventies as if it’s still the seventies.          

Building Environmental resilience

People aren’t the only victims of extreme weather – animals, plants and entire landscapes have been left vulnerable after the floods and storms.

Thus, our third point focuses on restoring natural areas to a state of resilience. ‘Resilience’, in this context, is the ability of the environment, and all that depend upon the environment – individuals, communities and businesses – to withstand and readily recover from severe weather events after having implemented practices that establish a stable climate and sustainable environment to the greatest extent possible.

Building a resilient environment means restoring vegetation and repairing riparian zones so that they can fulfil their natural functions. It means implementing innovative ideas such as restoring natural features and protecting coastal wetlands. This assists environmental resilience and provides a buffer between ocean and coastal settlements. The bigger picture is that the entire reconstruction effort must be about both recovery and resilience.

Toby Hutcheon sums it up like this: “In an age of increasingly dangerous climate change, it is the resilience we build to future impacts that will ultimately be the most important achievement of the flood recovery.”

An internationally renowned wetland, the Pumicestone Passage is protected under five international conventions, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.  Cumulative impacts from urban development, intensive land-uses and recreational pressures are putting nationally listed species, including migratory birds and marine species at greater risk.

At an estimated 50,000 people, Caloundra South is set to be the Sunshine Coast’s largest development.  The state government intervened in the local government planning process and handed planning to the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) in questionable circumstances in October last year.

SCEC Campaigns Manager, Narelle McCarthy said the development could create significant impacts on the local ecology.

“In pushing into such a sensitive catchment, all levels of government, the ULDA and the developer are accountable for ensuring this cornerstone of marine biodiversity in south-east Queensland and Australia is protected and enhanced into the future,” she said.

Daisy Barham, Queensland marine campaigner with AMCS said the importance of marine life in the Passage cannot be underestimated.

“The importance of protecting the marine life of the Pumicestone Passage and the broader Moreton Bay Marine Park cannot be underestimated. People enjoy the Sunshine Coast for its marine life and natural lifestyle, these values need to be protected,” she said.

“This development will place additional pressure on a very sensitive area at a time when its marine life needs our help. The Pumicestone Passage is habitat for magnificent marine life such as turtles and dugongs. The threat posed to these animals is alarming and must be addressed.”

Barney Foran: Research Fellow, Institute of Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University.

Carbon tax or not, Australia’s carbon emissions will keep rising, driven by rapid rates of population growth and increasing affluence. Most of the carbon is domestic but we also own the carbon that China and other manufacturers emit when they make stuff we purchase from our malls and big box stores.

The ‘Bigger Australia’ much loved by Kevin Rudd and the top end of town surfaced again in the last federal election when both major parties scrambled for a ‘right-sized Australia’ driven by disenchantment in marginal electorates where services are tight and solutions oft promised.

Unseen in the election dog-whistling was a science-based population futures report, Long-term physical implications of net overseas migration: Australia in 2050, researched and written by Dr. Jonathon Sobels of Flinders University and Dr. Graham Turner of CSIRO and other authors. This was an update and elaboration of CSIRO’s 2002 study, Future Dilemmas.

The new Physical Implications study highlighted the many resource and environmental challenges that come with rapid rates of population growth, in the absence of revolutionary changes, in how Australia conducts its business of day-to-day living. By 2050, these challenges include a doubling to a tripling of greenhouse emissions, a looming oil dependence, increased traffic congestion and critical water shortages in three capital cities.

This is bad news for the legions of corporate suits who see rapid population growth as the only way to maintain their cash flow in an economy based on house building, personal consumption and mining.

The news was so bad that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) chose Christmas Eve of 2010 to release the report with a frontispiece demeaning the science-based modelling as contested, and not to be believed. As judged by a lone economics reviewer, the physical-economy analysis did not conform to the assertions and beliefs of an economics-centric world.

However the three components of the study, while strongly related, were independently sourced thus ensuring greater robustness than if they relied on a single analytical idea. The middle tier or regional scale of analysis in particular gives the key insights for national population policy and the consequences of a bigger Australia. As most inbound migrants ended up in discrete areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, the report found that if things were already partially crook in those areas, it could only get crooker under the rapid population growth that a bigger Australia requires to gather steam.

As most Sydney-siders know, the geography that gives its beauty and attractiveness is also a beast when several million more people have to be settled by 2050. Unless the multi-billions that are promised at each election time are spent quickly, and over and over, the city function and economic product will stall in a gridlock of disgruntled ratepayers in the far-flung suburbs. In western Sydney where most population growth occurs, water and soil quality and biodiversity resources can only trend downwards given the experience over the last twenty years of development.

As cost and time over-runs on its Wonthaggi desalinisation plant dominate the media headlines for Melbournians, they might ponder how many more engineering projects they’ll have to pay for with another two million people. The green wedges, meant to buffer biodiversity losses in the face of development, have been discarded by an incoming government intent on bettering the previous bunch. Still Melbourne has easier topography and better public transit that its arch rival Sydney and with strong ongoing investment, might just retain its liveable city status.

Perth’s long-term future is here now as its second desalination plant nears completion, its surface dams receive trickles rather than floods and its groundwater aquifers approach their extraction limits. The region’s sandy soils transmit sewage and farming nutrients easily and promise increasing eutrophication and algal blooms in its rivers and estuaries. Set in one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, rapid increases in land clearance to indulge the suburban dream will pressure nature’s diversity even more than in the recent past.

But this future is not hardwired, provided public policy is built on three cores. The first is to stabilise national population to a 26-28 million level by 2050. The second is to be as mean as possible to each Australian by introducing an integrated carbon-water-land taxation base that penalises profligate use of critical resources and provides the funds to refurbish and make anew. The third is to do what we must do and quickly. Ten star houses, nearly independent of power and water grids, are here now. All cities need fluent transport in an oil-lean future, so why not rapid transit for all now? Our households are bulging with stuff we don’t need and don’t want, our bodies also. So why not a lifestyle where enough is enough, rather than more being our common mantra?

Today’s population policy is driven by the Dolly Parton syndrome, where bigger is better even if it is top heavy and somewhat false. Using science to explore Australia’s future gives the view that we’d probably be better off, leaner and smaller. However if Australians want the quality of life we now enjoy, then the challenges are already daunting and we’d better start the grand transition today.

In essence, this means that the 100-year ARI flood is one with a probability of occurring once in every 100 years. The theory behind this is an argument that buildings have a life of around 100 years and thus if built above the 100-year ARI flood level, they would not flood in their life.

So the whole basis of the protocol turns on probabilities. What would happen if you started to examine the floods that had occurred in a particular area, calibrated those floods to the probabilities and you started seeing that you had say four flood events in 25 years, where those events ranged between 1 in 40 and 1 in 88 year events?

This is more or less what had happened in Noosa through the 1960s to the 1980s.

There’s something wrong, isn’t there. The planners and engineers started to get worried. The probabilities say that the flood frequencies should not be this high.

The simple fact is that our flooding knowledge relies on rainfall knowledge and this is derived from data. We have been collecting rainfall data systematically in Queensland since the major flooding that occurred here in 1893.

That’s right — we have a little over 100 years of rainfall data. Curious isn’t it, that with a little over 100 years of rainfall data, we are designing to a flood event that is supposed to occur only once in that period. Any statistician would tell you that to have a significant level of confidence about the 100-year ARI event, you would want 1000 years of data underpinning it.

Now add to this, the issues of climate change and sea level rise and it is very apparent that some significant caution should be applied when considering whether or not to commit development into floodplains or determining what minimum floor heights should be applied in those areas already committed for development.

In Noosa in the 1990s, the Noosa Shire Council at that time took two decisions:

• First it decided not to commit any further lands in the floodplain for development; and
• Second, implement minimum floor heights across all potentially flood prone urban areas.

In each case, the decision took into account river flooding (where the water comes from a rainfall event in the catchment), storm surge (where a low pressure system sucks up the water on the coast forcing it inland through the river mouth), sea level rise, wind setup (where the wind across a body of water pushes up water on the far side), the effects of wave action (created by boats and 4WDs moving through the floodwaters) and freeboard (a buffer against error or in case of unforeseen circumstances). This gave rise to heights of some 0.5-0.8m above the 100-year ARI flood event.

In 2003, the State Government implemented State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire & Landslide and its associated Guideline. This policy relies on an equivalent of the 100-year ARI flood event. There is no allowance for any of the additional factors that were used by Noosa above.

In 2005, the State Government implemented the South East Queensland Regional Plan. This plan saw extensive areas below the 100-year ARI flood event placed in the Urban Footprint across the south east and particularly in areas of the Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay Regional Council areas.

In 2009, the State Government amended the plan and had the opportunity to correct these mistakes. It did not do so and in fact in the Moreton Bay Regional Council area the State Government, despite the objection of the council, actually extended the commitments in flood prone areas.

Quite simply, the headlong rush to accommodate population has resulted in appropriate caution being set aside. The lessons from 1974 were quickly forgotten.

One wonders whether those from 2011 will be just as quickly forgotten.

Opening the Queensland Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence (QGECE) at the University of Queensland, Mr Robertson said the centre is playing a key role in the State Government’s renewable energy strategy.

“Geothermal has a bright future in Queensland because it has the potential to produce more base-load energy than any other renewable energy source.

“That’s why the government is investing $25 million towards geothermal energy research and development projects in Queensland.”

Mr Robertson said the government’s $15 million investment in the QGECE represents the largest investment in geothermal energy research in Australia.

“The QGECE is undertaking research and development to progress large-scale electricity generation from subterranean hot rocks and hot sedimentary aquifers.

“Research includes electricity transmission and power network modelling; geothermal reservoir exploration, characterisation and management; plus development of new turbines and cooling systems to optimise geothermal power plant production and efficiency.

“This important work is helping position Queensland as a leading technology provider in the growing international geothermal energy sector.

“Collaborative research partnerships have been established with the Central Research Institute for Electrical Industry of Japan; GFZ-Potsdam of Germany and United States power plant and turbine manufacturer, Verdicorp.

“QGECE is also working with other Australian universities to create undergraduate and post-graduate programs to develop a skills base for jobs in emerging geothermal industries.”

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland Professor Paul Greenfield welcomed the State Government’s $15 million investment in the centre.

“This investment has enabled the University to build the only centre in the world that addresses one of the biggest remaining challenges of geothermal technology — how to increase power conversion efficiencies.

“By investigating how to efficiently convert the power of hot rocks into useable electricity, the researchers could transform geothermal energy into an economically viable addition to Queensland’s electricity mix,” Professor Greenfield said.

“The Centre’s global reputation in this space has led to a series of international partnerships and a crop of excellent PhD students from Australia and six other countries.

“Through these young researchers, Queensland is making a vital contribution to the global future of zero-emissions energy,” he said.

Other Bligh Government geothermal initiatives being delivered include:

• $5 million Coastal Geothermal Energy Initiative to identify areas of high geothermal heat flow along the Queensland coast that may unlock viable geothermal resources closer to power transmission networks.

• $4.3 million to upgrade Australia’s only operating geothermal power station at Birdsville from its’ current 80 kilowatt capacity to up to 400 kilowatts.

• A new regulatory framework to enable the development of large-scale geothermal energy projects and provide exploration and investment certainty to industry.

Up to six kilometres of vegetation was cleared prior to having environmental management plans approved for a pipeline network linking coal seam gas fields in the Surat Basin with a proposed liquified natural gas plant on Curtis Island near Gladstone.

“QGC’s failure to have these plans approved by the federal government and in place prior to commencement of the clearing of vegetation contravened conditions attached to the approval granted in October 2010,” said a departmental spokesperson.

“Matters of national environmental significance are unlikely to have been significantly impacted by the vegetation clearance in this case.”

The pipeline project was approved with 67 strict conditions to minimise the environmental impact of the building and operation of the pipeline network.

“In issuing notices imposing penalties totalling $19 800, the department considered the technical nature of the breach and level of co-operation given by the company during the investigation.
QGC was issued with the penalty infringement notices on 15 April 2011.

“The notices given to QGC send a strong signal to companies that the department takes compliance with national environment law very seriously with penalties and breaches enforced,” said the spokesperson.

Don Henry is the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). Henry has led the ACF since 1998, helping it to become a strong advocate for the environment by promoting solutions through research, consultation, education and partnerships. In 2008, Henry won the Equity Trustees Not For Profit CEO of the Year award. In 1991 Henry was awarded a Global 500 Environment Award from the United Nations Environment Program in recognition of outstanding practical achievements in the protection of the environment. (source: wikipedia)

Don Henry, Executive Director, Australian Conservation Foundation

ECO: Why is it important in your opinion to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies?

HENRY: Recent analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation shows the federal government spends $12 billion each year on subsidies that encourage greenhouse pollution, but only $1 billion on programs to tackle climate change.  The $12 billion of fossil fuel subsidies are a dead weight on the economy, the budget and the environment.  Not only do they encourage pollution, they also discourage industries from becoming more efficient, because they are getting paid from the public purse to keep on doing things the old, dirty way.

ECO: In September 2009 in a Communiqué from Pittsburgh, the G20 nations committed to “rationalise and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”.   As a member of the G20 has Australia done anything to phase out any subsidies?

HENRY: A Freedom of Information request by Greenpeace has uncovered documents that show bureaucrats last year identified billions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies that should be cut for Australia to honour the G20 commitment.  Yet the government told the international forum no such subsidies existed.  It’s important our government comes clean about taxpayer-funded support for fossil fuel industries – and got on with the job of reforming those subsidies and putting us on the path to a clean energy economy.

ECO: Which subsidies should be targeted initially?

HENRY: The fringe benefits tax (FBT) concession for private use of company cars is projected to cost Australian taxpayers more than $1.2 billion dollars per year by 2012-13.  What possible justification is there for an investment of our nation’s wealth in tax concessions that mean that if you drive a company car, the benefits increase the more you drive it and the more you pollute the atmosphere?  Researchers at Latrobe University found 20 per cent of the beneficiaries of this FBT concession drive more than they otherwise would have in order to secure the increased tax benefits.  The FBT concession for company cars should be restructured to create positive incentives for efficient vehicles, to remove perverse incentives to drive more and to complement efforts to re-tool the Australian car industry for cleaner car production.

By far the largest fossil fuel subsidy, the fuel tax credits scheme, costs Australian taxpayers around $5 billion a year.  Most of this goes to subsidise the diesel fuel use of large mining, forestry and transport companies.  Let’s be clear about what the fuel tax credits scheme means.  It means if you are a commuter in Sydney’s western suburbs or Melbourne’s south-eastern growth corridor or outer Brisbane, with little or no access to reliable public transport, you pay 38 cents per litre in tax on the petrol you need to get to work.  But if you are the world’s wealthiest mining company, making record $10 billion half-year profits, you pay not a single cent in tax for the diesel you use for your off-road mining operations.  This is unfair and it’s bad for the environment.  It must be changed.

ECO: Do you think there would be political fall out from their removal?

HENRY: It’s time for the government to stand up to the big polluters and say enough is enough.  Australia cannot afford, environmentally or in terms of sound and responsible fiscal policy, to continue these subsidies.  We need to stop putting taxpayers’ money into pollution promotion and start investing in clean energy, like wind and solar, and in cleaner fuels and cleaner transport.

ECO: What should the government do with the money the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies will bring?

HENRY: The money saved by restructuring fossil fuel subsidies should be put towards a range of programs to tackle climate change and shore up our natural environment against the threats it faces.  Australia’s ecosystems are our silent life support systems. We need to invest in keeping them healthy and functioning. A new Climate Change & Ecosystem Protection Fund should be set up and resourced with at least $1 billion per year.  This would be put towards ending land clearing and forestry operations in high conservation value native forests, protecting wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin, establishing a network of marine sanctuaries and National Heritage listing for the Kimberley.