Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The former speaker started strongly for two or three minutes, where he quoted himself, but as soon as he got into other territory he really started to flounder. The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 on one level is about protecting turtles and dugongs, which everyone supports. But on another level it is a stalking horse. It is about protecting the ability of the Minister for the Environment to effectively ignore recommendations about developments. It removes the legal requirement for the minister to consider threatened and endangered species, but it does increase penalties for illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs.

As a Queenslander—I married someone from Cairns and all of my in-laws are up in North Queensland—I understand the importance of the Great Barrier Reef and of turtles and dugongs, which come all the way down to Brisbane. All six species of marine turtles are listed under the EPBC Act as threatened: the loggerhead, the leatherback and the olive ridleys are actually endangered, and the green, hawksbill and flatback are vulnerable. So, obviously, we should do all we can to make sure they are protected. The same applies to dugongs, for which there are all sorts of problems, because they are migratory. Also, there are lots of threats to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, where dugongs do a lot of their breeding. Some of the populations have not recovered from Cyclone Yasi—in terms of the flow-off—and there are all sorts of challenges. I commend the Minister for the Environment for that part of the legislation.

But, as I said, this is not about turtles and dugongs. This is actually about a stalking horse. Why would an environment minister still continue to draw pay if they propose that the decision maker will not have regard to approved conservation advices when they make a decision? Why would an environment minister abrogate their right to run their ruler over the environmental advice provided to them? Unless the Minister for the Environment comes in here and says, 'I should have my pay cut in half,' then he has no credibility at all when it comes to this.

Let us be realistic. The mining industry of 2013 is a completely different industry to the mining industry of 100 years ago that created moonscapes in parts of Tasmania. Those days are long gone. Mining industries now get big ticks for making sure they protect the environment. The rehabilitation they carry out is world class. We are world leaders when it comes to rehabilitation. I say this after having worked as an adviser to the Queensland Resources Council. I know the peak body in Queensland quite well and I know the great work that has been done when it comes to rehabilitation. I do not know mines in Tasmania, but I do know mines in Queensland. I know Queensland has a lot of things going for it that are not dissimilar to Tasmania in that we have a brand that says we are clean, green and a great tourism destination. We also have some of the best resources in the world.

How do we balance those? I can tell you, Member for Braddon, what we do not do. We do not throw out the rule book when it comes to the environment, because that effectively is what we are doing here. This stalking horse that those opposite are carping about is all about saying that the environment minister does not have to have regard to the conservation advice provided to them.

See this speech in context