Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In rising on behalf of the government to address the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006, I firstly thank all members on either side of the House who have presented their arguments. This bill does one critical thing. It assesses and changes the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and sets them up for the coming decade in such a way as to achieve two fundamental things: firstly, it strengthens and enhances provisions to protect the environment in relation to specific projects as they are considered, it provides a tougher regime and it provides a way of dealing with the great challenges before us as we look at individual projects; and, secondly, it does this in a way which will make it faster, more efficient and give people greater certainty and the greater ability to make decisions both on investment and on protection of the environment.

In looking at the bill, and in looking at the arguments presented, I want, firstly, to look at the background and what has been achieved over last six years under the regime established through the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act; secondly, to deal with the changes which have been specifically outlined and addressed in the course of this legislation; and, thirdly, to deal with four of the arguments presented during the debate by our friends on the opposition benches.

Firstly, on the regime which we have inherited, the EPBC Act—the most comprehensive environmental legislation in Australian history—essentially has been in force for six years, during which time over 2,000 referrals have been made. This has led to approvals being required for 420 major proposals for development around Australia. Nearly 200 assessments have been completed and 150 approval decisions have been made. As part of that, 120 fisheries have been assessed; nearly 200 new species, communities and environmental processes have been included on the lists of threatened species, ecological communities and key threatening processes; 250 listed threatened species recovery plans have been developed; and 50 Ramsar wetland management plans have been put in place. Over 15,000 wildlife trade permits have been considered and issued and 370 places have been added to the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists since the commencement of the new National Heritage Scheme in January 2005.

Taken together, we have seen a comprehensive piece of legislation which was intended to achieve, and which has achieved, the combination of protection of the environment and certainty for the process of investment. But this bill seeks to enhance that regime. It seeks to essentially achieve four outcomes. The first of those outcomes is about streamlining the process and reducing red tape. In particular, it attempts to speed up the pace at which consideration and approvals are processed. That is important for those who are concerned about the environment and it is important for those who need to make judgements, decisions and investments. It will, in many cases, lead to outcomes that people who are making proposals might not necessarily want. We will see that there are difficult decisions about what is a viable proposal and whether it will have an impact on the environment. If it does have an impact on the environment—a threatened species or something else—then we will not hesitate to demand that there are adequate responses and protections put in place or otherwise the project will not proceed. It reduces the number of mandatory steps in the assessment and approvals processes and it allows for different authorisation processes to occur concurrently. That is how we are streamlining things.

The second great outcome which we seek from this bill is certainty for industry and the community. In particular, the bill allows proponents to give their views on proposed approval decisions, including any proposed conditions, before the final approval decision is made. It includes the ability to establish a transparent process for consideration and reconsideration.

The third of the major amendments contained within this bill is to establish a more strategic and flexible approach to dealing with a combination of assessments and listings. In particular, it allows the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to pursue priorities, not simply to respond to a range of different references from people in all different parts of the country. They are important, they will be considered, but it does allow most importantly for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Department of the Environment and Heritage to pursue the most important, most pressing and most urgent needs, not merely those which have been put forward on a procedural basis. In particular, the change establishes a more strategic approach to the listing of heritage places, to threatened species and to ecological communities by strengthening the role of the minister, the Australian Heritage Council and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee in setting priorities and work programs.

This leads me to the last of the core reasons and actions contained within the amendments and this bill. It will strengthen compliance and enforcement. In particular, the amendments will establish new penalties which are aimed at ensuring the proponents do not commence proposed development action prior to the referrals assessment and approvals process under the EPBC Act being completed. In other words, there will be penalties and punishments for people who jump the gun, who try to pre-empt decisions and who simply try to cheat the process. Those are tough measures and we make no apologies for that.

Against those changes, a series of considerations have been raised by our friends on the opposite side of the chamber. The first and most significant of those is in relation to climate change. It is a generalised argument that this bill has failed to deal with climate change. I want to make three brief responses in relation to climate change. The first is my very clear long-held and longstanding position that the facts on global warming are clear and absolute: it has been proceeding and is proceeding, and we have the latest information from the Bureau of Meteorology of a 0.6 degree increase in global temperature over the last century—precisely as predicted—and that this is a direct result of human activity in relation to carbon emission. I make no bones about the fact that it is real—I never have—and I regard it as a deep and clear personal responsibility and one of the abiding tasks of my time in parliamentary life. But the big question here is: what has been the response? You would imagine, from what the opposition says, that there has been a dramatic increase in emissions from Australia. But what we find, very clearly, when we look at Australian emissions in the period from 1990 until now, is 550 million tonnes as opposed to 560 million tonnes of CO² or equivalent gases. There as been almost no change in the emissions profile of Australia as opposed to what the rest of the world has seen.

The other thing we want to talk about here is that our friends on the other side make a great deal of the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the developed world that have not ratified the Kyoto protocol, yet it is like looking at the list of people who promise to kick 100 goals a year in Australian Rules football and comparing it with those who actually do. They give all the weight to the people who make the promise and give no weight to the people who actually deliver. Morality rests with performance. Let me make that statement. Morality rests with those who have actually delivered. When you look at what has happened in relation to targets, when you see what has happened in the European Union, Japan, Canada or so many other countries, you will see that other countries have promised but failed to reach their targets but that Australia is one of a handful of developed world countries that have actually reached their targets. So what you need to do is to recognise that morality rests with those who have achieved their targets, not with those who make a blithe promise, fail to achieve their targets and clothe themselves in some greater good simply on the basis of the promise and not the delivery. That is the reality: Australia is one of the very few countries in the world to have done that.

By comparison, what we see is that we have taken simple, clear and absolutely practical steps to reduce emissions. Only in the last week we have seen some of the most significant projects in the Western world in terms of practical reductions, further reducing Australia’s 560 million tonnes of CO² or equivalent emissions. They are real projects, whether in Hazelwood, Victoria, the Solar Systems project within Mildura or, as we have seen today, the two major carbon emissions projects in Queensland under the Low Emissions Technology Development Fund. We choose to make a difference by actually reducing emissions. The questions I would have for the Labor Party are simple ones: what is the level of the tax you will apply? If you are going to impose a cap and trade system, what is the level of the cap you will apply? Let us hear what the cap is, because that would be profoundly interesting. Against that background, I make no apology for the fact that, of all the countries in the world, Australia has done as well as any on controlling our emissions as opposed to this fantasy which has been peddled.

The second of the arguments the opposition has taken in relation to this bill is that we have failed to protect overseas historic heritage places. But we have worked with overseas governments and we have very clearly put in place a system that will allow for a list that will further enable us to deal with overseas governments in a way that will best help to assist Australia and help to protect the places overseas.

The third criticism made by the opposition is in relation to decisions on listing heritage places. The opposition has said that the minister is not going to take into account information from anyone in making his or her decision on the listing of heritage places. Let me make this absolutely clear: this provision is not new. The EPBC Act currently allows the minister to seek additional public comments. After receiving advice from the Australian Heritage Council, the minister will be allowed to consider the situation but will not be forced to divert the processes and to act in a way that is utterly contrary to good process and to the way of a fair hearing.

The fourth and final criticism I want to deal with is a curious one. It is the notion that the penalties we have in place in relation to marine reserves on Ashmore Reef and in other places are too hard. That is what the opposition have told us. They have said that the penalties we are imposing on people who take protected species such as turtles, dolphins and dugongs are too hard. Well, bad luck; we make no apologies. We have set in place a difficult and tough regime which will mean that the master and recidivist crew members will be held and prosecuted and that the rest of the crew will be sent home at the earliest opportunity. If that is a tough regime, I am delighted. I stand for that and I am pleased about it.

In summing up the government’s position in relation to the second reading of this bill, what I want to say is this: we have the EPBC Act, which has set in place the strongest level of environmental protection practically that we have ever had within Australia, but we can go forward and streamline it. We can make it more effective and we can include tougher penalties. We have heard—but we reject—the positions put forward by the opposition. Against that background I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Senator Ian Campbell, his staff and his officers. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context