JACOBI, Mr Jason, Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania [by video link] [09:18] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. I invite you to make a short opening statement, if you have one, and at the conclusion of remarks we'll go to questions. Mr Jacobi : Firstly, I'd like to thank the committee for enabling me to appear this morning. I'd also like to thank you for the extension that was afforded us. We are a small jurisdiction with limited resources and our ability to respond in the timeframes required is sometimes challenged, so thank you again. I'd like the committee to note that I'll largely be speaking on environmental matters today. I'm also prepared to take questions in relation to energy and forestry, noting, though, that I may have to take some of those specifics on notice. Firstly, Tasmania acknowledges the scale and the significance of the EPBC reforms and we're very keen to engage closely with the Australian government to understand how these changes will interact with existing regulatory settings and how they will impact key industries and communities. The reason that I'm appearing before the committee today is to reinforce our significant investment in this process and the work that the committee is doing. We're strongly committed to protecting Tasmania's natural environment. We have long supported an overhaul of the national environmental laws, and we note the potential for the reforms to deliver strong environmental protections whilst also enhancing the efficiency, reducing approval times and fostering investment certainty. As an island state, Tasmania has a very unique community and cultural dynamics, and it is, as many of you know, ecologically and geographically distinct from other Australian jurisdictions, with high levels of endemism. Over 50 per cent of the state's landmass is protected in reserves or under conservation covenants. We are quite unique in that sense. Our CAR system—the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system—is one of the most extensive in Australia. It, as I mentioned before, protects over half of the state's land area and secures a wide diversity of native forest communities, old-growth forests, biodiversity, geodiversity, water values and also cultural heritage across both public and private land. So this is a critically important context, as it presents significant benefits and opportunities but also raises extraordinary challenges for proponents. For example, securing land based offsets to support sustainable development in Tasmania is incredibly difficult. A 'one size fits all' approach to the reforms, in my view and that of the Tasmanian government, is not appropriate, nor will it be effective. I'd also just like to note on the record that we welcome the federal environment minister's statement that the reforms do not signal an end to native forestry and that day-to-day forestry approvals will continue to be made by states with stronger national oversight. This is a really important reassurance for industry and workers in regional communities, particularly in Tasmania. Our forest management system delivers very strong environmental outcomes, and the state is well positioned to demonstrate how our system aligns with the forthcoming national environmental standards, once the Australian government finalise the standards and supporting guidance. I'd also like to note that we're investing significantly as a state in multiple energy projects that underpin the Australian government's energy transformation goals and Tasmania's net zero agenda. Several of those projects were recently and are currently under consideration, and they are of national significance and underpin the investment in major projects like the Marinus Link. They are critical to the energy future, and demand that is expected in coming years by other states, not just Tasmania. If we do not deliver timely approvals for these projects, then we, as a state and as a nation, face significant energy supply challenges. These reforms are critical to certainty of those projects, and, without immediate reform, they pose the risk to the achievement of both state and Australian government renewable energy targets. To date, our experience with the existing EPBC environmental assessment bilateral agreement is one of duplicative assessments, variable levels of local government environmental knowledge and input, and a significant extension of the time required for assessments. The reforms therefore represent a real and significant opportunity to improve current processes and ensure that the Australian government and state regimes complement one another rather than duplicating or even contradicting one another. Importantly, they are an opportunity to deliver better conservation outcomes. As mentioned above, many proponents in Tasmania are actually unable to meet the fundamental land based offsets expected under the EPBC Act due to the significant amount of land already protected. This is a fundamental impediment to Tasmanian projects and compliance under the act. As I mentioned before, a 'one size fits all' approach to reforms, in my view, is not appropriate, nor will it be effective. Mr Croft's comments earlier before were spot on that there needs to be more flexibility, that these reforms present a unique opportunity to better secure and protect Tasmania's existing protected areas through a more flexible approach. So, in an ever-changing climate with increased risks from fire, flood, biosecurity risks, and native and endemic species, including risks to our premium agriculture in Tasmania, we should be looking at alternative ways to deliver offsets through enhanced land covenant programs, funding, security for research projects, species protection programs in and off protected areas, and also things like fire response capability. Imagine if an offset funding and payments program could be used to uplift the condition of our existing protected areas and state and world heritage values or deliver enhanced science and research or risk mitigation on and off protected areas. The conversation that I heard earlier around a restoration fund or an MNES or offsets fund—that the state could leverage off through a prospectus that we as a state could draw on to support protection initiatives would be an ideal outcome. In summary, focusing on land based or species offsets in the traditional sense is not the answer and puts both Tasmania's natural state and important energy and forestry industry programs at risk. We need a more flexible approach, consistent with policy settings under the national reforms, and we believe that is key to achieving effective and pragmatic outcomes with regulatory certainty. I look forward to answering the questions you have today. Thank you for your time. CHAIR: Senator Bragg. Senator BRAGG: Thank you very much for being there. My first question is: what type of consultation have you had with the federal department in threading together the MOU that's going to be required between Tasmania and the Commonwealth? Mr Jacobi : We've initiated a number of discussions with our federal colleagues about the urgency with which we would like to develop a new bilateral agreement. The advice that I've received is that fundamentally we need to redraft and establish a new bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth. We have not been directly engaged yet. We eagerly await the opportunity to commence those discussions, and to understand what is expected of us and what the framework will be to the bilateral discussion, but to date, no, we haven't had any further conversations. Senator BRAGG: What do you mean you haven't been formally engaged? Mr Jacobi : I've written to my colleagues through my department expressing our interest in having meetings to progress what a bilateral agreement would look like, but we haven't been responded to yet. Senator BRAGG: That's not good because the legislation passed last year, and there's a real urgency here to get moving. Do you have a sense of how many houses are currently ensnarled in Tasmania because of the EPBC Act? Mr Jacobi : I don't have a sense of that specifically, but I know for a fact that there are multiple projects that are challenged by the continuing backwards and forwards of advice requests. The time delays that occur through the existing process would no doubt be having an impact on a number of different projects, not just housing related projects. I can even cite some projects in my department that we're seeking approval on. Notwithstanding the fact that the questions that are raised are legitimate and genuine in terms of needing to reaffirm the expectations under the current EPBC process, they do result in significant time delays. I know a proponent who has been waiting six years for an EPBC decision. Senator BRAGG: I appreciate you don't have the exact numbers, but do you have some large housing projects in Tasmania that are currently ensnarled in Canberra's green tape? Mr Jacobi : I can't talk specifically to that. Senator BRAGG: Okay, but do you have any? Mr Jacobi : I don't manage housing in the state, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some housing projects that had triggered MNES. Senator BRAGG: So I understand your evidence, your evidence is that there are potential major developments in Tasmania that are currently held up. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: That sound very— Mr Jacobi : There are a number of energy projects, both historical and currently under consideration, that are being delayed because of the backwards and forwards between my department, the Tasmanian state government and DCCEEW. We need to find a faster way to reconcile differences of opinion. A good example is the Robbins Island project. There was significant difference of opinion between my departmental scientists and DCCEEW scientists about how Tasmanian devil offsets would be delivered. That debate or that uncertainty between scientists has translated to a delay particularly for that proponent. Senator BRAGG: I understand that you haven't had your correspondence responded to, but, in a reasonable way, how long do you think it should take to get the bilateral agreement done? Mr Jacobi : I don't know how long it will take. I don't know or understand yet what the framework is under which that bilateral agreement would need to be negotiated or prepared. That is what we are eagerly awaiting advice on. We responded to the draft national environmental standards that were recently published, but that is just a part of the bigger picture, puzzle and framework that we're seeking clarity about. I would like to think that we could get a bilateral agreement for the state drafted within six months, but I don't have any certainty about that. Senator BRAGG: Okay. Can you give any assurance that you think we can avoid duplication if there's going to be your state process plus this additional EPA? Mr Jacobi : We would be seeking to avoid duplication at all costs. I can give the committee assurance that the state government has no interest in having processes that require both Commonwealth and state assessment. We would like to be in a position where the Commonwealth has absolute confidence and certainty in the state assessment processes and we can proceed with assessing projects knowing that the Commonwealth will not then feel the need to intervene or overrule a decision. Senator BRAGG: Finally, if you could take on notice any further information you might be able to supply to the committee on any housing proposals that have been held up in Tasmania, I'd be very grateful. Mr Jacobi : I could. CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I'm hearing that you haven't had any formal conversations in relation to the MOU, but what type of consultation have you had over the standards themselves? Mr Jacobi : We received the draft national environmental standard, and we've provided our feedback on that. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: What was the Tasmanian government's view of the standards put forward by Graeme Samuel in his review? Mr Jacobi : I don't have any specific detail on the Samuel review and won't be able to comment. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Was the Tasmanian government part of the Samuel review consultation? Mr Jacobi : I can't recall; that was before my time. I'd have to take that on notice and come back to you as to whether we provided a response to that. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Okay. It'd be helpful, I think, to know what the Tasmanian government's engagement with Samuel was at the time. You said that, perhaps, the offset standard is going to be problematic for Tasmania given the limited amount of area to be restored or protected. Could you unpack what you think the alternative should be? What would you like to see available under the offset standard that would work for Tasmania, given the whole point of this is to be increasing protection, not decreasing protection? Mr Jacobi : Yes, I'm happy to respond to that. I think this is an extraordinary opportunity that we should unpack, so I thank the senator for the question. The extent and the significance of our existing protected area estate, as I mentioned before, is over half of Tasmania, and that estate is likely to experience challenges in the future through the changing climate. We know for a fact that the incidence of wildfire, for example, across Tasmania is likely to significantly increase. We had a circumstance only last year where we had a dry lightning storm across Tasmania, with, if memory serves me correctly, over 1,200 lightning strikes directly to the ground. At one point in time we had hundreds of outbreaks of fire. The ability for the state to respond to and extinguish those fires is very challenging. We've developed bushfire winch capabilities; we have helicopters on immediate deployment to send firefighters in to put those fires out. But when you're experiencing fires of that sort of significance and volume it's next to impossible, and we have had to triage which fires we respond to. The review that was conducted following that particular wildfire event was very glowing in terms of the Tasmanian government's response, but it identified that, with climate risks in the future, we need to increase our capability. Increasing our capability comes with a significant funding cost. We need at least another helicopter with additional staff with bushfire winch capability. That is an annual, ongoing and recurring cost to the Tasmanian state government. There is, at this point in time, insufficient Commonwealth funding to the world heritage area to deliver that sort of response, and that would be an ideal way in which we would use offsets funding to mitigate and enhance our response capability, which in turn has a direct impact on the protection of MNES. The sooner we can get crews on the ground to extinguish wildfires, particularly in alpine or sensitive ecosystems, the better long-term protections we can afford because some of those fires, as you know, can have impacts that lasts for hundreds of years and take endless decades to recover. I suppose what I'm suggesting is that, rather than looking always for a land based offset or a species based offset, if we were able to convert an offset into a fund that we could use for mitigation measures to protect, enhance and uplift the protections of our existing protected estate areas and use the fund to commission specific science and research into threats to existing species like further research around orange bellied parrot migration routes and better understanding of the patterns of movement of that particular bird species or increased understanding or research into devil facial tumour—these are all areas where an investment would have a long-term benefit not only to the species but to conservation in Tasmania as a whole. It would be a much faster and swifter solution for proponents who, at the moment, as we heard in the previous evidence, are having an impossible time finding the required land based offsets, particularly in Tasmania because most of it is already protected under conservation tenure. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: The matters of national environmental significance standards include the object of protecting and conserving and restoring habitat that irreplaceable and necessary for threatened species to, obviously, remain viable in the wild. Has your government mapped the critical habitat for the maugean skate? Mr Jacobi : We certainly have a good understanding from our research partners at IMAS about what the preferred habitats of maugean skates in Macquarie Harbour are, so yes. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: So, you do have that mapped. Have you— Mr Jacobi : I wouldn't say necessarily that it's been mapped, but we know what areas of the harbour they prefer to live in and the depths that they inhabit. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: And have you received any advice about these standards in relation to fish farming in Macquarie Harbour? Mr Jacobi : No. We haven't received any advice about that. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: You haven't sought out how these standards might impact on that critical habitat? Mr Jacobi : No. I haven't sought that to date, but we have a program underway in partnership with the Commonwealth, a conservation program, an initiative where we're seeking to secure the long-term viability of the maugean skate. As you know, we have a comprehensive program underway at IMAS which is proving incredibly successful in a captive breeding sense, and the committee that is responsible for the conservation of the maugean skate is actively considering how we might now start to transition those captive-bred maugean skates back into Macquarie Harbour as part of a repopulation program. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Where is the annual report from the National Recovery Team for the Maugean Skate up to? Mr Jacobi : I don't know where that is at at this point in time, but I can certainly take that on notice and provide that to you. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Is it your understanding that it's been completed? Mr Jacobi : I believe it's still—the committee only met this week in Strahan, and I have to seek an update from the committee. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: So there's nothing that you're sitting on that hasn't been released? Mr Jacobi : Not that I'm aware of, no. I don't know what your line of questioning is, in terms of 'sitting on'. I'm actively prepared to get any information out about the maugean skate as soon as it's presented to me, but nothing has been formally presented to me by the committee at this point. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: But isn't there a progress report that is meant to be updated with progress shown over the last few years? Nothing's been released since 2023. Mr Jacobi : I don't believe that's correct. I think the recovery team have, in fact, been providing regular updates through the DCCEEW and the recovery process. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Could you take on notice what has been released since the team was established in 2023? Mr Jacobi : I'll take that on notice, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to my appearance before the committee today— Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It's highly relevant because these laws are about protecting endangered species. One of the most endangered species of those that are at threat is the maugean skate, in your great state of Tasmania, so it's highly relevant, and you're the secretary of the environment department. So let's be not too cute here. I'd like an update on what has been released since 2023 from this team and whether there are any timeframes by which information and progress reports will be forthcoming. Are there any benchmarks of dates when the public will see the work of this team? Mr Jacobi : It's a national recovery team. I'd have to seek advice from the team chair about what the status is of any recommendations. I'm happy to provide that to you. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: My understanding is that the last communique from the recovery team was July 2025, in which they said that they were finalising the recovery team's annual report. That was in July. It was just an update to say they were finalising it. Have you seen any draft of that annual report? Mr Jacobi : No, I haven't seen the draft. Just to be clear, the national recovery team doesn't report to me. Like I said, I'm happy to make contact with the recovery team and see what information is available and what has been provided, but they don't report to me. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Okay. Could I ask you about what advice you've been given in relation to the sunsetting of the RFAs? Mr Jacobi : I haven't received any advice on the matter, and that's not within my department's purview. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: That's looked after by the department of forestry. Is that right? Mr Jacobi : Forest policy sits in the Department of State Growth. Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Yes. So that is totally out of the realms of what you do, although you did say that you would take on notice questions about forestry. Mr Jacobi : Yes, I'm happy to take that question on notice and come back to you on that. Would you mind repeating the question, for my benefit? I think it was in relation to the sunsetting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I'm wondering what type of advice the department has in relation to the sunsetting of the RFAs, where the conversation is up to and what consultation briefing papers et cetera are available for the Tasmanian government, given the sunsetting of the RFAs in the legislation. Thank you. That's probably it, Chair. CHAIR: On that note, I say thank you for your evidence today, Mr Jacobi. As you have taken questions on notice, could you please provide your answers to the secretariat as soon as possible but no later than 6 March. Thank you very much. Mr Jacobi : Thank you, everybody, for your time today. I really do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. CHAIR:  Our pleasure. .