Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would have to concur with every comment made by the member for Wills. I think the final quote he shared with the House really sums it up. This government is the handmaiden of big business. When it comes to the environment I believe it stands condemned for its lack of commitment to the protection of our environment to ensure that the most valuable asset we have is preserved.

Unfortunately, future generations of Australians are going to see that our environment is considerably diminished. The legislation that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, is one of the vehicles that will lead to our environment being diminished, because this government is the handmaiden of big business, of the fossil fuel industry and of the development sector in this country. When we hand the planning powers to the states and local governments it is like giving control of the blood bank to Dracula.

I am a member who has been a councillor and a member of state parliament, and I know how those levels of government evaluate and consider various pieces of legislation and developments. When I was a member in the state government I was very fortunate because at that particular time Bob Carr was the Premier of New South Wales, and he had a real commitment to the environment. But, unfortunately, his commitment is not shared by the current government.

For the record, this legislation amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to the states and local governments. That is what I was alluding to earlier—the simple fact that the states and local governments will be in a position where they can make decisions about developments they are involved in. I really feel this is the wrong way to go. It even includes World Heritage listed properties, nuclear activities and approvals under the water-trigger amendment. It is not good enough. It is not ensuring that our environment will be protected into the future.

In the last parliament I, along with the member for Wills and many on the other side of this House, was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. We conducted an inquiry into Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate. We learnt of the many challenges that our environment faces. We learnt of the many challenges that come before government and the need for the federal government to have a strong voice. During the consultation period, when we were receiving evidence, we had groups come along to us and talk about his very aspect. They said that this is something the Commonwealth must not do. We must not hand responsibility over to the state governments. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I believe that your predecessor was a member of that committee, and he made an enormous contribution towards the report we handed down.

We cannot let the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment abrogate their responsibility and just hand decisions to the state governments about what should and should not be preserved. There is not a state that I would confidently trust to oversee decisions relating to our precious environment. The states do not have the same thorough processes for looking at the adequacy of assessments of threatened species. They do not have the same commitment to that issue.

Within Shortland electorate there are many pristine areas that have a number of threatened species. When I was a councillor we looked at issues around threatened species, and we looked at it under the Commonwealth legislation. I did a similar thing as a member of state parliament. The Commonwealth legislation was taken into account. If there is no overarching umbrella that details the way threatened species need to be protected and looked after, then it is really putting a threat to those species. The extinction rate is frightening, particularly on the east coast of Australia, which has the highest concentration of population.

I urge the government to rethink its action in relation to this legislation, because it is bad legislation. It is going down the wrong path. In Queensland it is quite frightening to think what premier Newman has planned for the Great Barrier Reef. The draft strategic assessment underlines concerns expressed by the committee in relation to 'serious decline in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property' and states that 'a business-as-usual approach to managing the property is not an option'. One of our most valuable environmental assets within this country is the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great tourist attraction, it is a source of biodiversity and it is a source of great pride to us as a nation. The actions of this legislation will be to hand the protection and the preservation of our reef over to the state government and, even more frightening, to some of the local councils within that area.

The report indicated that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef, and that was highlighted very effectively when the committee was undertaking its inquiry. It concluded that the loss of resilience is not attributed to any one single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and of management not keeping pace with these. The proposed dumping of dredged materials from the Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. This is of particular concern because it was approved despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist.

See this speech in context