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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014. I have a few things to touch on in this speech, but to convince people in my electorate about some of the challenges facing us over the environment, I should just send out the member for Lyons' speech. That will be a vote winner for me, well and truly. I thank him for his—let us call it a 'contribution'. I thank the temporary—I mean the current—member for Lyons for his contribution.

I want to refer to the member for Port Adelaide's amendment to the legislation, and I will refer to it in detail. It suggests:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

… the House notes:

(1)   the Government’s poor environmental record—

as demonstrated in the member for Lyons' speech—

(2)   the importance of protecting Australia’s rich and diverse environment;

(3)   the need to fully examine the range of changes proposed to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act since September 2013; and

(4)   the lack of assurance from the Government about the future management and protection of our natural environment.”

The EPBC Act enables the Australian government to join with the states and territories in providing a truly national scheme of environment and heritage protection and biodiversity conservation.

It is interesting to see it through the prism of a little bit of history, I guess—that is, noting how we came to this stage where the Commonwealth parliament is talking about the environment. We can actually go back to the Chifley and Menzies eras and that great surge of migration after World War II when seven million people came to Australia. Because the Commonwealth government were so involved with that and with getting the town and country planning out there, they said to the local government areas: 'You need to have a bit of consistency. We just can't let it be all higgledy-piggledy for the 700 local governments and states and territories; we need to have a bit of consistency.' That is where it started. Then you obviously move up to the seventies and Gough Whitlam's changes, where we brought in the environment act. And I guess since the 1970s there has been that cooperative federalism, where basically the states and the Commonwealth have worked together reasonably harmoniously—I am sorry the member for Lyons is not here; I mean, we did have to send an F111 down to Tasmania to sort out a few things, but mostly we have worked things out cooperatively, as a federation should.

Sadly, things have changed. That great piece of legislation, the EPBC Act—a John Howard piece of legislation that has served Australia well and has done so much in making sure that we protect the environment and protect endangered species—is now being trashed. In fact, for the first time in 40 years there is no intergovernmental forum that is dealing with the environment and water. For the first time in 40 years! It is a very retrograde step, and I am sure all current and former and shadow environment ministers would agree that is a crazy thing to do. No standing committee on environment and water exists at the moment.

We have this linguistic artifice, I guess, where we are saying: 'Oh no, it's all about states' sovereignty. It's all about states making decisions in the nation's interest.' This is a trashing of the historical development in Australia of caring for the environment. We have an environment minister missing in action—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

definitely!—who basically should take a pay cut. He is abrogating his responsibilities as an environment minister to the dodgy white shoe brigade down in George Street in Brisbane and he is subcontracting his responsibilities to the local governments of Australia. How can Porpoise Spit type people make decisions that are in the nation's interest? Local governments make decisions that are in local governments' interests. That is what they do. States make decisions based on the interests of their state, that is what they do. They make economic and other electoral decisions—all sorts of decisions. They even make decisions based on the donations given to their political party, as has been suggested by ICAC in New South Wales. How can an environment minister in this parliament stand up and look the Australian people in the eye and say that these local governments and these state governments will make the best decisions for the future of our endangered species and our environment?

I will take you through a couple of examples. After Campbell Newman was elected Premier, the very next day—on the Sunday—the Deputy Premier, who had not even been sworn in, came out and said, 'We should make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park smaller.' That was the day after the election! That is the sort of government we have got in Queensland. Campbell Newman might have great environmental credentials because his dad was instrumental in the Fraser government making the Fraser Island national park a reality. Campbell Newman and the people he has surrounded himself with will always make decisions that are based on the best interests of Queensland, whatever they see them to be. A national government—a government that believes in doing the right thing for Australia—will always have that broader view.

I say this on a day that the State of Origin match will occur. I proudly wear a maroon tie. I am a Queenslander, proudly, but my heart is a green and gold heart. I believe that I am an Australian first. Games of football are important but the national interest is so much greater than the considerations of states, so much greater than the considerations of some of those local governments.

For 40 years the Australian government has been the leader on environmental protection. Now we are taking retrograde steps. John Howard would be ashamed of this government and what they are doing—not in terms of this particular piece of legislation, as cost-recovery is something that we do agree with and we do support. We do agree with that side of it. There are other aspects of it that are problematic. For a start, massaging it to say that it is going to be part of a 'one stop shop' is a furphy. We know you are creating eight stops—eight states and territories are now going to have input into this process. So stop this this 'one stop shop' claim. Just because something rhymes doesn't mean it is noble and good. In this case it is going to be undermining the Commonwealth. It is going to be undermining the flora and fauna of the future that are going to be endangered.

Read back the speeches of the member for Canning and the member for Lyons and you will see that they do not care about the nation's interests. They do not care—that will be the reality. You will see that accreditation in many of the state and territory laws will not meet the requirements of the EPBC Act. That will mean that there will actually be greater costs, greater uncertainty and there will be legal liability—great work for lawyers, but not so great for the plants and animals of Australia that will be at risk. It will also be a breach of our international obligations. You can see that. They come in here saying that they going to reduce the regulatory burden, but this policy does the complete opposite; it is going to increase regulatory obligations on business and increase the risks associated with major projects.

Let us have a look at these state and territory governments who do the assessing of development proposals. The reality is—and I can only speak for Queensland—that they have been gutted. All the talent has either been sacked or gone. That is the reality. Of the people that we are now asking to do extra work to make extra decisions and extra assessments that are in the nation's interest, all the good people are gone or going. In an atmosphere where we have a Commonwealth environment minister that does not value what they do, they will not be able to do their job properly.

For the last 40 years—or maybe 50 years if we go back to the Green Bans—we can see that the Australian people do care about the environment. However, their trust in governments, be it Labor or Liberal, is plummeting. That is the reality. We have seen Labor and Liberal governments make short-term decisions based on the electoral cycle, whereas the environment is forever. We need to do things that are in the best interests of this nation—crazy things like putting a price on carbon, for a start! But that is a piece of legislation for another day. This current proposal will basically give too much power back to the states and territories. It is a furphy to suggest, as the member for Canning did, that this red tape is going to be a great cost on business. When you are looking at billion-dollar projects, the environmental investigations are minimal.

The modern mining industry has a great record when it comes to rejuvenating mine sites. I do know that. But let us look at what is going to happen. You will have local governments making decisions about water resources and that trigger with CSG. Local governments making decisions about nuclear actions, including uranium mines, is a possibility. The Townsville Shire Council making a decision about whether or not at uranium mine should go ahead, or local government making decisions about World Heritage in an area or whether they are federally listed species and ecological communities? That will be an absolute environmental disaster. It is a very short-sighted and myopic view from this minister, who is subcontracting out his responsibilities to the dodgiest people in the business—those who are not able to make those national considerations.

I have no problem with the cost-recovery elements of this legislation at all, but this one-stop-shop policy, the platform they have come into this parliament on, is to be opposed on every occasion. We need to have legislation that is effective in protecting our most threatened wildlife and places. We have environmental vandals like the member for Lyons coming in saying that he knows a bit about environmental areas because he drove past a couple of trees once! I have a bit more faith in our scientists. I know that the Prime Minister said today in question time that shaving $100 million of the scientific budget is nothing to worry about. I think he said it was 'small fry' or something like that, whereas I actually have a lot more faith in our scientists and what they can deliver, especially for the future. I am one of those people who believe in making national decisions for the future of Australia, not just something based on the short-term electoral cycle. This government, more than any other government in Australia—not the 700 local governments or the eight states and territories that make decisions based on their interests—this government, this chamber, needs to make decisions that are in the best interests of this nation. Saying that there is too much red tape when it comes to mining projects and development projects is very short-term indeed. As I said before, the cost-recovery elements of this legislation are not something that we have a problem with.

But let's go back to the proud history that Australian governments have—Labor and Liberal; I need to stress that—from Whitlam to Fraser, Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard. We have all done things that have been in the best interests of this nation.

I note that the member for Wentworth was the environment minister that declared a marine park so that it could be preserved for the future. Sure, he voted against it last year, when it came up in parliament. Nevertheless, when it came to be disallowed by one of the motions the member for Wentworth voted against that. When he was minister he was able to declare that part of the world so that it was saved for the future of Australia and the globe.

We need to do what we can to protect our environment. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce environmental impact assessments in the 1970s. That is the proud tradition we have. Many of these initiatives came out of Sydney and the green bans and people caring about their environment and about urban renewal. We have learnt so much from them.

So the Commonwealth government needs to be doing what it can to protect our endangered species and to protect the environment and make sure that we have sufficient biodiversity. Who knows what will be found in those forests that the member for Lyons was so quick to send the bulldozer through! We might even find a cure for cancer. I know it has been claimed by every man and his dog in this parliament recently, but who knows what will be found in those environmental areas.

Australian governments—Labor and Liberal—have a proud record when it comes to protecting the environment. Some of the aspects of this legislation before us are adequate but the Abbott government needs to have a look at the poor environmental record it has started with. It needs to look at our children and say, 'We can do better.' We need to protect our rich and diverse environment, particularly as we are the driest continent in the world, with some species that are found in no other country. More work needs to be done by this government and I give it a D—a fail.

See this speech in context