Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the shadow minister's second reading amendment. Let me observe that the principle of this bill is sound. It allows for proponents of development to contribute to the cost of assessment and development of the application process by the Commonwealth. Fees can be charged on a cost-recovery basis for regulatory activities undertaken by the environment department and the Minister for the Environment. The full suite of regulatory activities to which this applies will be specified, along with the fee schedule or formula, in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations. The bill will enable the regulations to specify administrative process and requirements for applications, payments, refunds, exemptions and waivers. The provisions of the bill, and even more so the second reading amendment moved by the shadow environment minister, invite us to look at how effective the EPBC Act has been. In the first place, I draw to the attention of the House the objects of the act, in particular sections 3A(c) and (d), which provide:

(c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making;

Unfortunately the reality is that these objects have not been realised in practice.

Everywhere you look our unique and beautiful wildlife is in decline. Whether it is our albatrosses and other seabirds in decline from longline fishing or our migratory shorebirds in decline from the destruction of coastal habitat both overseas and here, whether it is koalas in south-eastern Queensland being belted by urban sprawl, whether it is native animals in northern Australia disappearing as a result of fires or cane toads, or whether it is woodland birds disappearing from land clearing and fence-to-fence agriculture, right around Australia our wildlife is in decline.

Not long ago I outlined to the parliament the sad fate of a dozen of Australia's brilliantly coloured parrots and cockatoos, reduced to numbers so low we can count them individually—some in the hundreds, some even less than 100. In total, with almost 1,200 plant species and 343 species of animals considered endangered or vulnerable, the rates of species extinction in Australia are amongst the worst on the planet. The most recent Commonwealth State of the environment report2011 showed the highest numbers of threatened species occur in the more densely populated areas, particularly the east coast and the south-west of Western Australia. Since European settlement 18 species of endemic mammals have become extinct, representing seven per cent of the total. About 100 species of plants have become extinct, the majority having occurred in areas cleared for farming.

It is astonishing to me, given this unhappy picture, that the government is looking to water down and reduce environmental protections. It regularly throws around disparaging terms like 'red tape' or 'green tape' to undermine the only things standing between many of our most beautiful species and extinction. One of the things the government intends to do is to delegate as many environmental approvals as it can to the states. Given this intention, a key question is: how adequate are the state environmental laws to do the job the EPBC Act is supposed to do, as I outlined earlier, to ensure that the health and diversity of the environment is maintained for the benefit of future generations?

In answering this question I am indebted to work prepared by the Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices for the Places You Love Alliance, which was provided to me by Saffron Zomer of the Australian Conservation Foundation. This extensive analysis concluded that the state environment protection laws are not being effectively implemented. Interim conservation orders and management plans are not being utilised in Victoria. No native plants have been declared prescribed species on private land in South Australia. No critical habitats have been listed and no interim protection orders have been declared in Tasmania. No essential habitat declarations have been made in the Northern Territory. Across the board, key provisions are often discretionary. Critical tools such as recovery plans and threat abatement plans are not mandatory. Time frames for action and performance indicators are largely absent. Key weaknesses include inadequate resourcing for recovery and threat abatement planning; excessive ministerial discretions; and threatened species considerations can be overridden by state planning and development laws.

Given these serious shortcomings of state environmental protection legislation, the Commonwealth has no business—repeat, no business—delegating environmental assessments or approvals to the states. We will be failing in our duty to our children and grandchildren if we vacate this field.

I recently met with UNESCO World Heritage staff and expressed the view to them that the Liberal government's attempts to amend the World Heritage boundaries should be rejected. It was with some relief that I heard the World Heritage Committee has been advised to reject a bid by the federal government to delist 74,000 hectares of forest in Tasmania. Last year 172,000 hectares was added to Tasmania's World Heritage area under the state's forest peace deal. But the federal government said the boundary extension had been rushed through and was therefore not valid. It wanted 74,000 hectares delisted, claiming it had been degraded from past logging and should be opened up to forestry.

But a draft decision released in Paris on 16 May recommended the World Heritage Committee not approve changes to the boundaries. That draft decision is based on two reports by conservation bodies. The first is from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which said the federal government's submission to the World Heritage Committee contained 'no detailed justifications or explanations' and only 'simple statements' that the area had been logged. Its report said that just 10 per cent of the area in question had previously been logged. The World Heritage Committee was also advised that, if the boundaries were reduced, important Aboriginal heritage could be excluded. This is a humiliating slap in the face for the Liberal government, as it should be, as the claim was always fraudulent that this area had been degraded.

Australia has been among the strongest supporters of the World Heritage convention for 40 years under governments of different colours, so the Liberal government's efforts to trash our reputation in this area are truly astounding. The request of the Liberal government is environmental vandalism of outstanding universal value forests and presents a danger to the environmental integrity of the whole Tasmanian World Heritage area.

The government has claimed that 74,000 hectares of the 170,000 hectares inscribed last year are not of outstanding universal value because of the extent of the damage from past logging. However, only 10 per cent of the 74,000 hectares proposed for removal has been disturbed and less than four per cent of the area has suffered major disturbance from logging. I have been advised that 90 per cent of the area is in excellent condition. In fact, provision was made by the previous, Labor government for the restoration of these disturbed areas to maximise the outstanding universal value of the forested extension. The provision to include restoration areas in World Heritage sites was welcomed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Heritage Committee.

A prominent World Heritage consultant, Peter Hitchcock, who was a key adviser on the original Tasmanian World Heritage nomination back in 1989, has questioned the claim that some of it is not worth protecting, saying that about 90 per cent of the land is outstanding eucalyptus forest that has never been logged. He said:

'Some of it is some of the most outstanding forests in the country, if not in the planet …

'So the great majority of the area that is being proposed to be removed from the World Heritage Area is in fact unlogged forest, and much of it with important conservation values.'

As I indicated earlier, Labor does not support in any shape or form the process in train under this government to delegate approval of environmental matters to the states or to local governments. As the Places You Love alliance points outs—and I was pleased today to part of a briefing by environmental law expert Adjunct Professor Rob Fowler on these matters—for more than 40 years, the Australian government has led the way on environmental protection. Indeed, the Howard government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was created because Australians expect the federal government to protect our great natural places and wildlife, and their quality of life.

Furthermore, what is being referred to as a one-stop shop is actually an eight-stop shop involving each of the states and territories. This approach will undoubtedly create uncertainty for business and eventually undermine investor confidence. This fundamentally flawed policy will give us eight separate and different outcomes. There will be bilateral agreements between the federal government and each individual state and territory that rely on their inadequate and completely different legislative and regulatory regimes. The accreditation of state or territory laws that do not meet minimum requirements will put at risk matters of national environmental significance, could well breach our international obligations and will possibly expose the Commonwealth to legal liability. The stated intention of this policy is to reduce the regulatory burden but, in fact, it does the opposite, increasing regulatory obligations for business and increasing risk for all.

In addition, state and territory governments do not assess development proposals with the national interest in mind. Conflicts of interest are of great concern. States are reliant on royalties and other income from large development projects and, in some cases, are the actual proponents of them. The states do not have the capacity to adequately assess projects that include matters of national environmental significance, and there is ample evidence that the states and territories fail in even the most basic elements of ensuring that environmental compliance is delivered. The dereliction of state governments is highly pertinent. If it were not for the Hawke government back in 1983, the pristine Franklin River in Tasmania would now be a dam. If it were not for that national government, we would have had sand mining on Fraser Island; the Daintree rainforest would have been logged; and the Great Barrier Reef would have been drilled for oil.

The Australian community expects the federal government to safeguard our environment for present and future generations. The eight-stop-shop model is neither efficient nor effective. It creates unreasonable risk for government, unreasonable risk for business and, most importantly, unreasonable risk for the environment and the community. I urge the House to support the shadow minister's second reading amendment.

See this speech in context