Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I well understand the concerns raised by the member for Cowper, the member for Page and the member for Hume on this matter. Whilst I have not been out to their electorates and seen the problems, I have no doubt that what they have brought to the House by way of their explanation and description of the problem is very real and very much a concern to their local communities. This Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Public Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010, however, is wrong both in its content and its intent and, quite frankly, it is unnecessary. I will speak to each of these issues separately.

By way of background, the grey-headed flying fox is listed as a threatened species under the EPBC Act and the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. It would not be listed if there was not a concern about the numbers of flying bats in Australia. Because it is listed, the government quite rightly has an obligation to ensure that any provisions relating to the EPBC Act are properly dealt with and handled. Having listed it under those two acts, the question is: has the government followed due process in dealing with the matter raised by the member for Cowper? My view is that it certainly has.

I go to the question of whether the government has acted responsibly and appropriately in this respect and why this bill is unnecessary. The government cannot, as the member for Page has quite rightly pointed out, deal with a matter until it receives an application. The role of lodging applications rests with the local authorities, be they the local government or the state government. In this case, the New South Wales Department of Education on 20 September lodged an application with the New South Wales Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities about their concern over flying foxes. The department, quite rightly and quite properly, not only assessed that application but also did so within the 20-day statutory time limit required of it. In fact, it then went on to grant the necessary approvals required in respect of the application. There were some conditions to that approval process, but those conditions are quite reasonable under the act. So the department, every step of the way, has dealt with this process appropriately. Whether others have not is another matter and should not be a reason for the legislation to be amended or any criticism to be made of the department.

Nor was the decision made by the department in any way associated with or tied to this bill. It was made entirely separate of this bill that has been brought before the House and was made in accordance with an application that was lodged with it. So, given that the matter has now been dealt with by the department, approval has been granted and a process is available to the local community to deal with the problem, it would seem to me that it is totally unnecessary to follow through with this bill. I am sure that the ultimate objective of the member for Cowper in this matter is to deal with the problem in his local community, and I believe that a course of action has now been put in place which should enable that to happen.

In respect of the question of bringing a bill to parliament to change the EPBC Act being wrong, I say this: all of us at different times would perhaps have concerns about the way matters are dealt with in our local communities and dealt with by this parliament. To suggest that each time we have a particular issue the solution rests with changing the legislation that overrides the matter in question is simply not the right way to deal with the matter. What it effectively does is undermine the integrity of the very legislation that is being questioned—in this case, the EPBC Act. It would do the same with any other act. The resolution to these matters is to go through the appropriate channels, as has been done in this case, not to substantially change the very legislation which is there for good reason—and that is, to ensure that decisions cannot be made on an ad hoc basis which go totally against the intent of the act. (Time expired)

See this speech in context