Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 This is a bill that cannot be supported by anyone who takes seriously the regulatory role of the national government in respect of the environment we all share and the environmental values and biodiversity which we have a responsibility to protect for future generations. This bill represents another instalment of this government's 'anything goes' approach to development and big business, and follows the pattern set in their capitulations to big polluters on the issue of climate change, and to big miners on the issue of a fair share for all Australians of the profits derived from the resources that belong to all Australians.

Essentially, this government wants to scuttle out of the way and let the brute and unequal forces of the market do as they will. It wants to take issues of the greatest environmental importance and sensitivity, and have them determined by state and local governments, removing some key protections when it comes to World Heritage, endangered species and water resources, and failing even to ensure that this devolution of environmental protection authority will result in consistent processes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That change, in particular, is not just bad for the environment but bad too for the certainty of development prospects and proposals.

This goes to the fundamental difference between Labor and the coalition. We understand that representative government derives its authority and owes its duty to the people, not to corporations, and we understand that representative government is obliged to act on the peoples' behalf in protecting community values, assets and resources against what can be the contrary interests of large companies. Those opposite believe that government simply needs to get out of the way, to vacate the field and hold open the gate in the onrush of market forces and profit motives. There should be little wonder whose interest that approach suits best.

In Western Australia we do not need to be too creative in imagining the kind of shortcuts and process failures that might be involved through the proposed derogation of the Commonwealth's environmental responsibility. We have seen the Western Australian EPA get itself into terrible knots over the environmental assessment of the proposed Kimberley gas hub at James Price Point, a situation where four of the five board members involved in that critical decision had to withdraw through conflicts of interest, having already participated in aspects of the determination, and where the chairperson nevertheless saw fit to deliver the final determination and approvals alone. Thankfully, in August last year the Supreme Court of Western Australia said the approvals were unlawful and invalid.

But is that the kind of process we are now going to see for all manner of critical environmental assessments around this country—from the Kimberley to the Great Barrier Reef, from the Tasmanian forests to the Coral Sea? Is that the kind of process people in my electorate can expect in relation to the proposed bisection of the Beeliar wetlands by Roe Highway stage 8? Are we going to see WA's flawed environmental assessment process determine the fate of a rare and fragile wetland whose ecosystem is of great environmental, Indigenous and community significance and which supports migratory birds protected under treaty?

The Labor government introduced special protections in relation to coal-seam gas development in recognition of the legitimate concerns that exist around the contamination of groundwater. We introduced a water trigger and we ensured that coal-seam gas and large-scale coal extraction developments could not be the subject of an approval bilateral. That protection is taken away with this bill and I know, having received a great deal of correspondence from my constituents and from people around Australia on this issue over the last year, that this is a step that will be widely condemned. It has to be recognised that there is a checks-and-balances aspect to the existing system that should not be weakened in the manner that is proposed. There is a place for approval bilaterals in certain circumstances and upon proper constraint, but the approach taken here is moving towards a blanket and dangerous abdication of federal responsibility. Common sense tells you that the precautionary principle should apply and that community expectation in the area of coal-seam gas development, in particular, is that the highest standards of scrutiny and regulation be maintained.

I suspect that every member in this place would both acknowledge and be proud of the fact that Australia is a continent of environmental treasures. Most of us would have some kind of personal connection to a piece of coast, forest or a wetland in our home state if not in our electorates. In WA for me personally there are many, many places like that, and I have spoken in this place about a range of natural wonders on land and in the ocean in remote parts of Western Australia and right in the heart of my electorate of Fremantle. It may be that some members are not aware that the entire south-west of Western Australia comprises an ancient granite slab known as the Yilgarn Shield, and that this dry continental plateau, with its poor soils and heat and low to moderate rainfall, is nevertheless home to an utterly remarkable range of diversity of life. Indeed the south-west botanical province is one of only 34 recognised international biodiversity hotspots. More than half the region's 12,000 plant species are not found anywhere else in the world. Within the Fitzgerald River National Park, which includes 70 kilometres of unbroken coastal reserve and is classed as a UNESCO biosphere, there are 1,900 unique plant species, 300 more than exist in all of Britain.

The vast reaches of Western Australia, north and south, are not barren ground, even when they seem low and dry and lightly populated by humans. On the contrary, right across this continent are examples of natural beauty and biodiversity that can be put at risk by inappropriate development. That is not to say that economic activity or resource development is inherently damaging to our environment. Indeed, an effective system of environmental planning and regulation will generally provide outcomes that protect the environment, enable development and ensure a balance between economic activities like mining and tourism or fishing and other kinds of recreational ocean use. The EPBC Act properly constituted and administered with the appropriate resources has been the bedrock of a system in which the protection of critical environmental values are paramount but through which economic activity is enabled through a careful and consistent process Australia wide.

I would just like to say a couple of things on the topic of 'green tape'. In short, I would suggest that anyone who thinks 'green tape' is a clever way of reducing the issue of environmental protection to something trivial and annoying, something that people might want to get rid of, should think again. If you explain to someone that 'green tape' is a shorthand way of describing the high-quality and high-standard environmental assessment and protection of our oceans, forests, rivers, wetlands, reefs and endangered species, and then ask them if they believe the government should provide less of the stuff, they will ask you whether you've taken leave of your senses. If you had a box of 'green tape' with you at that point, they would ask you for some. They would probably suggest the tape should be wider. They would probably tell you to get bigger rolls of the tape and more of it, and that it should be as sticky and strong as 21st century tape technology allows. So if those opposite think that the weakening of environmental protection contained in this bill—or in other reforms—will be welcomed by the Australian community because it amounts to so-called 'green-tape' reduction, think again.

On that point, I want to recognise the enormous community engagement in the Places You Love campaign, whose slogan says it all: 'Protect the laws that protect the places you love.' In addition to the 1.5 million Australians who have joined the campaign to protest against this government's dismantling of environmental protection, there is a cavalcade of groups who are similarly committed to arguing against the changes that this bill contains. For the record, and as an indication of the strength of the opposition to these measures, I will list those organisations: ACT Conservation Council, Arid Lands Environment Centre Australasian Bat Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, Bat Conservation and Rescue Queensland Inc., Birds SA, BirdLife Australia, Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, Climate and Health Alliance, Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Conservation Council of South Australia, Conservation Council of Western Australia, EDO Victoria, Environment Centre NT, Environs Kimberley, Environment Tasmania, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth Melbourne, Greenpeace Australia, Hope Australia, Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Invasive Species Council, National Parks Association of the ACT, National Parks Association of NSW, National Parks Australia Council, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Queensland Conservation Council, Queensland National Parks Association, Rainforest Rescue, Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Tasmanian National Parks Association, The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Total Environment Centre, Victorian National Parks Association, The Wilderness Society, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, and WWF Australia. I thank all of these organisations for the fine work they do in protecting and advocating for Australia's unique environment.

The national government rightly has a specific role in assessing development proposals whose potential impacts include matters of national importance or relate to conservation outcomes that are guaranteed by international agreements. The national government is rightly placed to determine proposals which, in many cases, involve clear conflicts of interest for the states and territories, whose revenue is dependent on development royalties. The provision of consistent, high-level and high-standard environmental protection and biodiversity conservation is the responsibility of the Australian federal government, and the proposed slashing of the protections that have served such a valuable purpose is irresponsible and will likely have consequences that we, our children and their children may well seriously regret.

See this speech in context