Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it was a very different policy and we will go to the history in a minute, minister! I look forward to hearing that, and I wish the minister was as assertive around the cabinet table as he has been today in this debate!

The environment should, of course, be seen as more than just a blockage to accessing buckets of money. State and local governments and the community in general have an important role to play in the decision-making process when it comes to projects affecting the environment. But final decisions for matters of national significance—matters going to our international obligations—should rest with the Commonwealth government. We only have one Great Barrier Reef, one Daintree rainforest and one Kakadu. The list of such places goes on for now, but once they are gone they are gone forever.

These landmarks should not be subject to the budgetary whims of state and local governments—or indeed any vested interest. It is worth noting that state, and particularly local, governments do not always have the resources or, in the case of various coalition state governments, the will to conduct thorough assessments of environmental impacts. There are obvious conflicts of interests in the many instances where a state government is also a project proponent. We have seen evidence of that sort of conflict of interest with the Western Australian government's shark cull and with the Victorian government's cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park.

Of course state governments have their own environmental departments, but, when these same governments are advancing a certain position, their department's advice is often under question. So an uncompromised Commonwealth government taking a dispassionate decision—away from the instant concerns—is no bad thing. Under this government's changes, Premier Newman will be able to approve dredging and dumping on the Great Barrier Reef; Premier Barnett, of shark cull fame, will have the final say over the Ningaloo Reef; and Premier Hodgman will be in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. Talk about putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!

I note recent comments from UNESCO, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, about these proposed changes:

The GBRMPA draft SA—

'SA' stands for 'strategic assessment'—

underlines concerns expressed by the Committee regarding serious decline in the condition of the GBR, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property, and that a business as usual approach to managing the property is not an option.

It further indicates that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef. The SA concludes that the loss of resilience is not attributable to any single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and that management is not keeping pace with these.

In relation to the Abbot Point expansion, also in Queensland, UNESCO stated:

The proposed dumping of dredged material from the proposed Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. Indeed, this was approved, despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist …

Increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the Federal Level to the State Level appears premature until the governance requirements to implement the LTPSD—

that is the long-term plan for sustainable development—

have been considered.

UNESCO's concerns should be heeded. They should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

In government, Labor sought to work with state and territory governments to streamline this process while maintaining our commitment to meeting environmental safeguards. Throughout these negotiations it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. Labor remains in favour of streamlining environmental approval processes for major projects—but only where final approvals on matters of national environmental significance remain with the Commonwealth government. The Australian government has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment. The EPBC Act, in particular, accounts for matters of national environmental significance and our international obligations. But the Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future.

Since coming to government, the minister and our recently self-described 'conservationist' Prime Minister have made bad decision upon bad decision, hurting our environment. These bad decisions have generally been based on no evidence. This is a government that does not mean what is says. On the one hand, the act binds the Australian government to various world treaties to protect the environment. On the other hand, this amendment bill installs a mechanism to effectively undermine these commitments. This amendment bill puts our environment at risk of irreparable damage by proposing to leave decisions of national environmental significance to state premiers.

I agree with the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Office that a real priority for an environment minister in the Australian government should be a mature examination of how environmental laws can respond to the pressing concerns of this century—challenges such as biodiversity loss, land use change and climate change responses—and fulfil our national and international obligations while getting the balance right and ensuring that we maintain Australia's high quality of life. As an aside, I note that the environmental defenders offices around Australia have had massive funding cuts—$10 million—another symbol of this government's threadbare environmental credentials.

Going back to the challenge that we should be facing, our environmental management challenge of the 21st century: streamlining can and should be a part of this where we are certain we have the balance right between removing barriers to economic growth and protecting our natural environment. I emphasise the words 'where we are certain'—because all too often there will not be a second chance to get things right. Now is the time to carefully consider the evidence, not to reflexively lower environmental standards and roll back protections.

See this speech in context