Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

The deficiencies in the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 that the government has brought into the House are extreme. The amendments that the member for Grayndler has moved are of real importance and need to be taken into account by the government.

I do note that in the original development of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, when Senator Hill was the environment minister, there was an extensive period of both consultation with and interaction between community groups, conservation organisations and other persons who had an interest in that legislation, as well as expertise and skill in that area. I would strongly urge the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Campbell, to take heed of the history of one of his predecessors in the way in which they actually took on board a number of the issues that were raised that were considered important. It is the case that there were some issues there that I did not think were satisfactorily resolved and there were deficiencies within the original bill—some of which have been addressed in this legislation, but very few. Notwithstanding that, the fact is that this legislation is complex in nature, it is a very large and bulky piece of legislation and it has come through in an extremely hasty fashion. There is an extremely important requirement that the community of interest—non-government organisations and others—have an opportunity, as the House also needs an opportunity, to properly consider the bill and to adequately deal with the amendments on the table, which will most likely go to the Senate as well.

The deficiencies in the bill before us have been identified in the member for Grayndler’s amendments. The Howard government has rushed the bill, without proper consultation. Importantly, it has failed to halt the decline in Australia’s natural environment. Here, critically, it is the Howard government’s current approach to conservation and environment protection that needs to be considered as we debate the bill.

There have been a number of concerns raised about the bill’s deficiencies. In particular, there are concerns about the reduction in ministerial accountability and opportunities for genuine public consultation. It is a fact that third-party access to the courts will be restricted. The proposed repealing of section 478 of the EPBC Act is a matter of some concern and it has been identified by legal experts and others as a significant loss. Abolishing the rights of third parties to seek a merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for ministerial decisions regarding permits for trade in wildlife is simply not acceptable, and I am sure there will be representations made and amendments put forward to deal with those particular deficiencies.

It is of great concern to us that this bill will potentially wipe a number of threatened ecological communities from the current waiting list for protection under the existing EPBC Act—some 500 threatened communities, amounting to millions of hectares, if not more, of endangered habitat across the country. In the context of Australia’s record of loss through extinction, the number of threatened and endangered species that are currently vulnerable in the landscape is of great concern. All of these issues are important, but what is critical is the fact that it is climate change that is bearing down upon the habitats of the species of Australia. It is climate change that has the capacity to affect our environment, our ecological resilience, and it is climate change that this bill does not address at all.

Additionally, the capacity for review of the act is reduced, and we would argue very strongly that there needs to be regular reviewing of the act. As important as that is, I think the essential message here is that the minister has to go back and have a look at the deficiencies in this legislation. But it will be hard for the minister to do that, because the government’s existing suite of policies is completely lacking when it comes to seriously addressing climate change.

Recently, we had the spectacle of Minister Campbell opening a wind farm in China, while wind farms actually close here in Australia. I think Australians would be absolutely astonished to know that Australian jobs and the prospects for future Australian jobs in renewable energy—wind energy in particular—cannot happen here because the Howard government does not have the policies in place. Now it wants to bring in 400 pages or so of legislation that streamlines development consent and denies third-party rights to those wishing to challenge the minister’s decisions under the act. Yet there is not even a climate change trigger in this legislation. At the same time, the federal government’s policy deficiencies, evident not only in this legislation but also more broadly, are seeing Australian jobs being lost offshore—in effect, because the Howard government continues to be blind to what it needs to do about climate change.

Our river systems are in crisis. It is an overused word, but it is true. Our endangered species, and the possibility of species extinction, mean that we have a crisis. We have a crisis because we are blowing out our future greenhouse gas emissions. If we discount the deal that we got from the Kyoto protocol, which we did not sign, there is no doubt at all that land based and other emissions are going to increase rapidly in the longer term. And we have a crisis in relation to the way in which the government responds, in that when there are actually positive measures underway, when companies want to invest in renewables, as they have in Tasmania, the opportunities are not there for them. As a consequence, the environment minister goes to China to get involved and be proud of what can be done in the renewables industry there—with some Australian participation, it has to be said, in that wind farm. But here in Australia, where we have plenty of wind, companies that want to make that sort of investment, people we need to employ in that area and the prospect of actually reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and doing something about climate change, we are unable to because the Howard government is completely deficient when it comes to providing a meaningful response to climate change.

This legislation needs to be seriously looked at. The amendments that we have brought into the House need to be supported by the government. In particular, the government needs to consider the primary deficiencies that exist in this legislation and the necessity for a climate change trigger. Most importantly, it needs to listen to community interest, non-government organisations and others who want to see fair dinkum legislation—not this poor excuse for legislation—coming into this House that will protect the environment. We will simply see the business as usual approach to protecting environment in Australia that we have witnessed from the Howard government, which so far is not in any way seriously addressing the most important issue that we face: climate change. This legislation needs full debate. It cannot be rushed through the houses of the parliament. We need to be able to consider the amendments and put them so as to improve this legislation, which is so poor. (Time expired)

See this speech in context