Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I draw honourable members’ attention to a number of very serious concerns about the operation of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 that were outlined in a report by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that was tabled in that chamber recently. The Senate committee has found that a number of sections of this piece of legislation may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.

The sections of the bill the Senate committee is referring to in this regard are very important ones. They deal with the national heritage nomination and listing process, of which I will speak a little more later; the application of heritage provisions to freehold land on Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the application of strict liability in a number of the fisheries provisions; the power to search vessels; the power to order searches without a warrant; the power to order strip searches; and other matters.

This is a very serious charge, yet the Senate committee has found that in most cases the explanatory memorandum for this bill does not include a satisfactory explanation for changes that could trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The explanatory memorandum offers little or no justification for many of these provisions. The parliament deserves better than this. At the very least, the public is owed a very detailed explanation of exactly why the government thinks it needs provisions that, in the words of the Senate committee, ‘trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties’. The fact that there is no explanation is yet another indication of how absolutely arrogant the government has become.

But the Senate committee has raised other serious concerns. The committee is also concerned that several clauses relating to penalties do not comply with the Commonwealth’s own Guide to framing Commonwealth offences, civil penalties and enforcement powers. This is a scathing criticism and condemnation of the government’s processes by that Senate committee, yet there is little or no explanation as to why these clauses do not comply.

A key concern of both Labor and the Senate committee is the fact that current provisions for reviews by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions are made personally by the minister. Yet all the explanatory memorandum says about this restriction on the rights of all Australians is that this ‘leaves the merits of these important decisions to be dealt with by the government’. What an extraordinary criticism and situation we face on this important piece of environmental and heritage legislation, which has been some four years in review and in the making, and which the government describes as the centrepiece of its environmental policy. Here we have this scathing criticism of it by a Senate committee.

Australians, as I have said before, are owed a much more detailed explanation of why the government is instituting these measures in this legislation. It demonstrates, yet again, that this is a government that is arrogant. Its ministers are arrogant and they pay scant regard for the proper appeal and other processes that they should have regard for in this major piece of legislation.

One of the most serious concerns raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee relates to provisions that would allow the minister to confer police powers on persons who are not police officers. I have raised concerns about similar provisions in bills relating to quarantine and fisheries management many times over the years. It is a very serious matter. These authorised officers, who are not trained police officers, will have power to detain and search. They will have powers that are normally held by police officers. Again, the explanatory memorandum fails to offer a detailed explanation as to why the government is again going down this path in this piece of legislation.

I was pleased to note that there are persons on the other side of politics who share Labor’s concern. They share Labor’s concern about the lack of proper and convincing explanation for these serious changes, many of which have the potential to impact heavily on the normal freedoms that Australians enjoy. In the Senate recently in debate Liberal Senator David Johnston—not a member of the opposition; one of the government’s own senators—had this to say:

This explanatory memorandum is probably one of the most appalling I have ever seen in the short time I have been in the Senate. It discloses no motivation, no reasoning and no justification for some of the most draconian powers that this parliament can conceivably and possibly enact: rights of search and seizure without warrant, rights of personal frisking without warrant ... this legislation should go back to the drawing board.

Hear, hear! I couldn’t agree more: this legislation should go back to the drawing board. But what a scathing criticism from somebody who is new to the parliament and has not got embroiled, I guess, too much up to now, with how the government operates. He is coming in with a cool eye on a piece of legislation and has concluded that it is the most appalling he has seen in the short time that he has been in the Senate. Well, the opposition simply rests its case.

The operations of this legislation are of vital concern to Australian farmers. Over 60 per cent of Australia’s land mass is in private hands. If any government wishes to make any great inroads on improving the environment then it needs to have the farmers of Australia working with it to achieve that objective. I am proud of the conservation efforts of most Australian farmers, and it is regrettable that in the popular media they are not given appropriate credit for what they do on their farms to improve the environment, conserve it and protect its biodiversity.

We on this side of the House are very proud of the great Landcare initiative of previous Labor governments and we commend the government for continuing funding in this vitally important area. That program has been warmly embraced by farmers and has been a catalytic program in changing the culture towards environment issues in the farming community, in establishing longstanding partnerships between farmers and community groups and in making a difference to local environments. Farmers have given willingly of their time and their knowledge of the landscape for the betterment of the Australian environment.

There are, no doubt, elements of this legislation that might find favour with Australian farmers—its noble objectives, the drive for better flexibility and streamlined processes—but in my experience it is the detail that often brings a different consideration of the initial cut and consideration of a bill and a subsequent deep concern. And there is plenty in this bill to concern Australia’s farming community, not least the staggering omission of any reference to climate change in this bill. There are 409 pages of detailed amendments to the most significant legislation dealing with the environment on Australia’s legal books and no mention of climate change! I rest my case once again.

There is another area of the bill that I would like to make comment on and which will be the subject of amendment by Labor in order to maintain the integrity of the Register of the National Estate, which contains more than 13,000 sites of natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage significance, some of those in my electorate of Corio in the Geelong region. I first raised this matter in a speech to this House in 2002, when I questioned whether adequate protection would be afforded cultural assets in the Geelong region currently on the Register of the National Estate. These assets include churches such as St Paul’s Anglican Church, Christ Church, St John’s Lutheran Church, St George’s Presbyterian Church and manse, and Sts Peter and Paul’s Catholic Church on Mercer Street. On the list are important hotels in Geelong, and I have to say I have drunk at a few of these—the Golden Age, the Bay View Hotel, the Geelong Wool Exchange and the Terminus Hotel. Other buildings and houses listed include the Corio Villa, the Dennys Lascelles Woolstore, the Geelong Army Drill Hall, the Geelong Customs House, the Geelong Town Hall, Lunan House in Drumcondra, Wimmera House and, of course, the great Osborne House.

These are unique cultural and heritage assets and their current level of protection under Commonwealth legislation will be watered down by this bill. As I noted in 2002—and I do so again—most of these assets will not be listed if this bill is made law. However, these assets are a part of Geelong’s rich heritage and culture and they must be given maximum protection as sites of real significance under Commonwealth law. That is why the integrity of the current Register of the National Estate must be maintained.

See this speech in context