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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I note that today is 16 June. I know, Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are aware of this date. I know also that you are a mad-keen literature fan and would know that today is Bloomsday. It is also my brother Simon's birthday, so happy birthday to my brother.

It is also the day that the Queensland government officially declared the Galilee Basin State Development Area. The SDA is designed to facilitate rail corridors between proposed new mines in the Galilee Basin and the Abbott Point Coal Terminal, right on the Great Barrier Reef. This basically gives power to the state government to compulsorily acquire properties to build rail lines under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act, irrespective of whether the farmers on that route object to that.

This point illustrates perfectly some of the problems that come with being a federation. When Australia's Constitution was drafted, the environment was not considered a significant national issue, so the government was not given any explicit power in the Constitution to make laws about environmental matters. The attitude of the time was, 'Conquer, clear and carve up into productive, economic farming units.' Even though we were an urban country at the time the Constitution was written, and are now, there has been a gradual progression when it comes to environmental law.

As a result of this constitutional silence, there has been some confusion over the years about the division of responsibility for environmental protection between states, the federal government, local governments and local communities. Many of the ad hoc national laws in relation to the environment have been introduced to give effect to Australian obligations, triggered by over 90 international environmental agreements that the government has ratified. These agreements or treaties cover topics such as the World Heritage area., which is important for Queensland because we have the Great Barrier Reef, but also for Tasmania and many other areas.

I note the member for Franklin is sitting at the dispatch box. She would be very passionate and aware of the history, in terms of environmental protection afforded Tasmania under those treaties. I think she might have had an F111 fly over at one stage—just to work out what was going on—a few years back, under Prime Minister Hawke. Other topics are climate change, marine pollution, the recording of pollutants, the remediation of land and biodiversity management, particularly preventing the extinction of species. I

In an attempt to clarify confusion between state and federal environmental powers and to make sure that Australia complies with its international obligations, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was introduced to take on responsibility for developments that had the potential to impact upon matters of national environmental significance. It is very important that everyone in Australia understands that this parliament is concerned by the EPBC with the matters of national environmental significance.

The EPBC was introduced in 1999 as a piece of fundamental environmental legislation for Australia by the Howard government. I commend them for it. Australian state and territory governments undertook shared responsibility for protecting our natural resources. After more than 10 years with the current legislation, negotiations began about the readiness to negotiate the transfer of environmental approval powers. At COAG, in December 2012, Prime Minister Gillard made the right decision to delay that transfer, indicating that more work need to be done to progress such bilateral agreements. Obviously we need to get it right. When we do not get it right, species disappear, habitats are destroyed and we breach our international treaty obligations.

One reason cited by Prime Minister Gillard for the government's hesitation is the need to ensure that high environmental standards will be consistently maintained across all jurisdictions. We would hate to have nine applications and nine sets of red tape that only confuse businesses. Now, without proper consultation and recognition of the severe consequences that come with handing over the decision-making power to state and territory governments, the Abbott government will remove federal protection of our native flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, such as the Great Barrier Reef, effectively taking a step back to the bad old days.

My major concern about this legislative amendment is that the states and territories are overly dependent on royalty revenues from the extractive sector, the mining sector. So the proposed bilateral agreements could mean the business sector would face an even more complex regulatory environment, due to the significant variations in different states' environmental regulation frameworks. The one-stop-shop model that was behind this legislation in the first place, that the Abbott government is putting forward, will harm the natural environment. It gives powers to states and territories that will see reduced protection for our nationally threatened species—our World Heritage regions, our wetlands, our migratory species and Commonwealth marine parks, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in my home state of Queensland.

Throughout the 1960s the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland advocated oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, the largest living structure on the planet and one of the most complex ecosystems. In 1973 the Whitlam government passed the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which gave the Commonwealth authority over the states in matters concerning seas surrounding Australia. This legislation was used to block the Bjelke-Petersen government's plans to allow oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst the Queensland and New South Wales governments challenged this legislation in the High Court, the court found that the Commonwealth powers were constitutionally valid. In 1975 the Whitlam government created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and created an authority to manage it for future generations. The organisation continues to perform this function today and by 1983 the marine park had been progressively expanded, becoming the largest marine park in the world. What a great legacy for a government—a Labor government, of course.

I am sad to say that the day after the LNP government was elected in Queensland—in March, two years ago—the Deputy Premier announced that he wanted to see the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park contract, become smaller. He did not mention it in the lead-up to the election, but it is part of that LNP tradition. I will quickly list some of the other things the LNP government has done—there are 21 items. They removed laws to protect urban areas from mining. They axed future conservation areas. They bulldozed tree-clearing laws and released millions of litres of contaminated mine water. They cancelled every renewable energy project. They limited rights in terms of appropriate development. They commenced logging in state reserves, expanded oil shale extraction and production, opened up national parks to grazing and partnered with the mining industry. They introduced pay-to-damage laws. They affected bats. They removed riparian vegetation protection and sacked hundreds of public servants, especially in the environmental department. They defunded the Environmental Defenders Office. They axed wild river protections, abolished the waste levy, cut funds to koala organisations, gutted the coastal protection laws, recommenced uranium mining and extended sand mining. They fired up dormant coal-fired power stations and removed the need for local councils to account for sea-level rises in their planning laws. That is just a snapshot of what the state government of Queensland has done.

Obviously handing approval powers to the states, like Queensland, will not lead to more efficient or effective processes. The already stretched resources of state governments, particularly where they have had public servants sacked—especially the more experienced ones with the corporate knowledge—will mean that the approval process will be convoluted, unpredictable and unreliable. Earlier this month the Newman government in Queensland announced five so-called megaports would be allowed along the state's coast under this blueprint for dredging programs near the reef. Abbot Point near Bowen in the state's north, one of the world's biggest coal terminals, was declared a Port Development Priority Area under the Queensland Ports Strategy, along with Gladstone, Hay Point, Mackay and Townsville.

A recent report by UNESCO found that the Newman government cannot be trusted with the protection and management of our greatest natural asset, the Great Barrier Reef—great consequences for tourism! The UNESCO report raised significant concerns with the health and management of the Great Barrier Reef and has recommended it be considered for listing as World Heritage in danger at its next session. UNESCO will make a ruling at the World Heritage Committee meeting in Doha, and I hope that this warning will be a wake-up call for the current governments at both a national and state level. The first thing the Newman government should do is take back responsibility for enforcing, monitoring and reporting on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, which it abandoned soon after coming to government—providing a licence to pollute, effectively.

Some environmental groups have noted that the changes to the EPBC Act would lead to a culture of litigation in the environmental movement, creating a situation in which developments are caught up in an increasing number of lawsuits as communities go through other avenues to protect their wildlife and land, whereas the EPBC Act was all about making it simpler.

The situation on the Great Barrier Reef is telling. According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, 50 per cent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 1960. We all know that state governments have a direct stake in major developments, particularly when it comes to the money they will receive from mining royalties—especially in a budget where the federal government has cut off much of their funding; $80 billion was cut overnight in the budget a few weeks back. Without federal intervention there would be oil rigs on the Great Barrier Reef and a dam on the Franklin River. With half of the Great Barrier Reef's coral lost already, we are on the cliff of an unprecedented and massive port and shipping expansion that could turn the reef into an industrial highway for supertankers. In fact, it could be an increase of 480 extra ships a year if the Carmichael mine reaches full production; not just a few more ships—we are talking about a projected 7,000 supertankers passing through the reef every year. As I said, the Newman government has just granted approval for the Galilee Basin coalmine despite serious environmental concerns raised by experts appointed by the Commonwealth. The $16.5 billion Carmichael project would add to that in terms of producing about 60 million tonnes of coal a year—a mine covering 200 square kilometres. It is incredible.

The EPBC Act was put in place to protect matters of environmental significance and the federal government should have oversight of this. They should protect matters of national interest so we can fulfil our World Heritage, Ramsar and other international obligations. When it comes to international obligations, the Australian public do not have confidence, sadly, in our state governments—be they Labor or Liberal or anything in between. One reason for this is that it should not be one state alone that decides whether a matter that is of national—or international—significance should be protected. This is why the EPBC Act was put in place in the first place, after the Tasmanian dam case.

Given the evidence of how state laws and state capacities are not adequate to fulfil national and international environmental obligations, environment groups, environmental lawyers and the Australian public do not have confidence that this process should go ahead. In fact, in a recent Queensland Audit Office report—this is a Queensland government entity—regarding mining and waste-resource industries in Queensland and how effectively they are being managed by the department of environment in Queensland, there was the following statement:

EHP (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) is not fully effective in its supervision, monitoring and enforcement of environmental conditions and is exposing the state to liability and the environment to harm unnecessarily.

That is from the Queensland government's own audit report into how effective it can be as the police officer on the beat. This is from the Queensland Audit Office. It actually reports to the Queensland government. This shows that there is an inability of the state government to effectively protect our national natural resources.

I, like the rest of the Labor Party, oppose the bilateral agreement's implementation in its current form and the hand-down of powers to states through the EPBC Act amendments presented to the House. I would ask the LNP members who are able to, to vote according to their conscience—particularly the Queensland members of parliament with the Great Barrier Reef at their doorstep such as the member for Herbert; I am sure he will be able to be a freethinking individual and make a decision that benefits his community, which is heavily reliant on tourism. He will know that we should be doing all we can to protect the Great Barrier Reef—to protect the reefs off Magnetic Island and the tourism connected with that. I would ask the LNP—all of the LNP, but particularly those Queensland LNP members—to consider their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren and do likewise. Just say no: you know it makes sense. LNP members are able to make an individual decision any time they want when it comes to a piece of policy. I have only seen two or three of them actually have the guts to cross the floor when it came to a piece of policy.

See this speech in context